Each month we pose a question to International Fact-Checking Network Director Alexios Mantzarlis.
It is our policy to publish the question during the month it was asked regardless of whether we have received a reply. If Mantzarlis replies later we will add his reply promptly to the page where we published the question. We’re tardy posting the June 2018 question, and Mantzarlis has yet to reply as of July 10, 2018, in part because of his role in organizing and leading the Fifth Global Fact-Checking Summit in Rome, Italy.
ZEBRA FACT CHECK
Earlier this year you announced an IFCN policy aimed at helping ensure compliance with organizations’ pledge to conduct corrections honestly and transparently. To test that system, Zebra Fact Check sent the same two complaints to an organization and to the IFCN. In both cases Zebra Fact Check holds that the organization should publish a clarification, at minimum.
The IFCN’s independent assessor wrote that both complaints received through the IFCN merited a response from the fact checker. After the IFCN published the assessment Zebra Fact Check continued to prompt the fact-checking organization for a response, but the organization to date has apparently neither issued any type of correction nor published any kind of defense of the criticized works.
Does this example show a problem with the organization’s compliance with the principle of open and honest corrections? Describe the IFCN’s vision for ensuring compliance with this aspect of its code of principles.
