Not sure who to trust or where to find reliable, fact-based information?
False and misleading claims can spread around the world in a matter of minutes, making it increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction.
At a time when false claims can spread faster than facts, independent verification is essential.
That's where DW Fact check comes in. Allow us to introduce ourselves and explain more about our work.
What topics we choose
DW fact-checkers investigate a wide range of claims and stories.
This can include statements made by politicians, government officials and political parties, as well as claims involving celebrities, athletes, business leaders and non-profit organizations.
We verify the authenticity of images, videos or audios that go viral on major social media platforms.
Increasingly, we also investigate whether widely shared content is authentic or has been generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence.
To decide which topics to fact-check, we assess claims based on four criteria:
- Virality: How quickly is a narrative spreading?
- Reach: Is the narrative being shared across multiple platforms and/or in multiple languages?
- Relevance: Why does the topic matter to our target audience? How important is it to the public debate?
- Impact: What consequences could the spread of the narrative have?
How we verify information
At DW Fact check, we investigate the origin of a claim, when and where it emerged, whether it has been manipulated, and who is behind it.
Whenever possible, we trace claims back to their original source and examine the evidence supporting them. We then compare the claim with reliable data, documents and expert assessments to determine its accuracy.
To fact-check information, we use a range of open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools and verification techniques.
DW has created a dedicated website where you can learn more about the verification workflows and tools we regularly use. There, you can explore methods for verifying images, videos, audio recordings, sources and text-based claims.
Transparency is an essential part of our work. Every fact check includes hyperlinks to the sources used in our reporting whenever possible, allowing readers to review the same evidence our journalists relied on.
Like all DW journalism, our fact checks are based on information that has been verified through reliable and independent sources.
Whenever possible, we follow the two-source principle and seek confirmation from more than one source.
While sourcing information from interview partners, we always select reliable and unbiased people. All interviews are recorded, with the consent of the interview partner, and archived.
We mention all sources by name and occupation and, where possible, link to their contact information so there is no lack of transparency.
Anonymity is only granted to sources in rare cases when their security is at stake or the topic is sensitive. In these cases, we are transparent about the reasons for granting anonymity.
How we rate claims
DW uses a collaborative process to evaluate claims and determine verdicts.
Before publication, the lead reporter recommends a verdict to two editors.
The rating system has eight categories:
- True: The statement is accurate.
- False: The statement is not accurate.
- Misleading: The statement is partially correct, but the information is portrayed in a way that creates a wrong impression.
- Unproven: The statement cannot be proven true or false.
- Fake: The image, video or audio is manipulated.
- Real: The image, video or audio is authentic.
- AI- generated: The image, video or audio was created using artificial intelligence.
- AI- manipulated: The image, video or audio was altered using artificial intelligence.
How we use artificial intelligence
DW has clear editorial guidelines when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence in journalism.
AI can help us improve workflows, accessibility, translation, data and content analysis and format adaptation. However, humans remain responsible for every journalistic decision and every item we publish.
You can read DW’s ten AI editorial guidelines here.
At DW Fact check we clearly label any content that we verify as having been generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence. We also explicitly disclose when we have used AI tools to help us verify content.
As part of our verification workflow we may use AI detectors to help assess whether content has been created or manipulated with AI. But because these detectors often produce inaccurate results, we use them with great caution. We use multiple tools to reduce the risk of error.
AI detectors do not determine our conclusions on their own. Any findings are reviewed and verified by our journalists using additional evidence.
How we correct mistakes
We do not manipulate images or videos we broadcast. When we correct or revise a text, or blur or zoom in on a video, we indicate which changes have been made and why.
We are committed to providing accurate and high-quality content free of errors.
However, despite numerous quality control measures, mistakes can happen.
At DW, it is important that we address these errors as soon as we become aware of them, and do so transparently. This means that when we publish an item that needs to be revised, we need to clearly indicate any changes that have been made.
This also applies to mistakes involving numbers, dates, names, locations, quotes and photos. These are corrected as soon as they have been verified, and the item is republished for online and social media.
A note added to the bottom of the article (or in a social media thread) informs the user of the revision and reason.
You can read DW's full guidelines on dealing with errors here.
How we work with other fact-checking organizations
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) is an association of fact-checkers worldwide, with more than one hundred organizations as members.
DW Fact check has been a member since March 2024. Membership must be confirmed annually with an application process.
To be accepted into the network, members must prove that they guarantee a high level of credibility based on 31 criteria.
With the "Code of Principles,"members commit themselves to non-partisanship and open and honest corrections, among other criteria.
If you believe that DW Fact check violates the IFCN Code of Principles, you can contact the IFCN hereand file a complaint.
Moreover, DW is part of the ARD Fact-Check Network, which combines the expertise of fact-checking teams from across Germany’s ARD public broadcasters.
Impartiality rules at DW
At DW, we are committed to impartiality. Across our coverage, and especially when reporting on controversial topics, we strive to include diverse voices and divergent views.
As individuals with our own lived experiences, we each have personal views and opinions — but these are private views that should not have an effect on our coverage.
We strive to always stick to these impartiality rules and maintain the highest standards of ethical journalism. They are based on the "Basic principles of the programs" as defined in §5 of the Deutsche Welle Act.
To sum it up, our fact checks rely on in-depth research using OSINT tools, independent sources, transparency, detailed argumentation, clear verdicts and DW's standards of impartial and unbiased journalism.
How you can reach the team
DW also encourages readers and viewers to submit suggestions and claims they have encountered.
We regularly review and report on these topics. We also encourage users to leave comments on our social media posts or write to us directly with questions or concerns.
While we review every message we receive wherever possible, we cannot guarantee that we will investigate every claim. Whether we pursue a topic depends on our editorial criteria, our resources and our ability to verify a claim.
You can reach us at factchecking@dw.com. Don’t hesitate to get in touch.
This article was first published in 2023 and has been revised to incorporate new developments and trends. Rachel Baig contributed to the original report. Edited by Josh Axelrod.
Reporting originally appeared via DW News. Read the full source for additional context.