OUR WORKING METHOD

The fight against disinformation in the post-truth era

We are a digital medium that analyzes messages, texts, photographs and audiovisuals circulating on social networks and/or disseminated by conventional media to determine if their contents correspond to reality and reason.

While the lie spread as news has an ancient antecedent, in recent years – since the emergence of the Internet and the emergence of social networks – disinformation has spread sowing uncertainty, confusion and, in some cases, violence, both in our country and throughout the world. since "Bolivia Verifies" we have set out to combat and denounce it in order to contribute to the strengthening of democracy and well-informed citizens.

After a long training process, reflection and learning on what constitutes and the consequences of disinformation and the so-called "post-truth", we start our service to the community on 1 June of the 2019. We are a team mostly composed of young journalists, although we also have in our ranks experienced "old sea lions".

We receive training from various organizations such as "Chequeado.com" from Argentina, "Maldita.es" of Spain, Argentina's "Desconfio Project", "Politifact" of the U.S. USA. and the Thomson Reuters Foundation in the United Kingdom, among others. We are currently working with the methodology of verification of disinformation and political discourse of Chequeado.com https://chequeado.com/metodo/ because it is the one that best fits our reality.

On a daily basis, our journalists/fact-checkers take to social media and monitor traditional media for disinformation. At this time, finding the lie, the misleading and the biased in the networks is not a difficult task. In the "post-truth" era, in which the lie is disguised as truth and a large part of the people are carried away by their emotions rather than by their reason, the false and the biased have taken over much of the content circulating on the networks.

Our principles

Bolivia Verifies has no relations or obligations of a religious nature, political or economic. Our work is strictly attached to the norms of serious journalism, responsible and independent. We owe ourselves to society and our work seeks to reach the citizen with quality information about what happens in our country and is distorted in social networks or in some traditional media.

We do not issue opinions or process religious claims, personal opinions, of the strictly sporting field, of the spectacle or issues such as allegations of corruption that are processed in the Judicial Branch and that have not yet been concluded.

Our work is part of the stipulations outlined in the Printing Act of 1925, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Political Constitution of the State.

On the ethical level, we adhere to the following principles:

https://issuu.com/asperiodistaslp/docs/eticaaplp

Rules that guide our work

In our work we apply the Code of Principles of the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network. We adhere to transparent work on funding and rigorous non-partisan check-up processes.

  • We want to improve the quality of public debate with verified information and the best available data.
  • We are committed to the constant training of both readers and journalists. We are sure that the more we are fighting disinformation, we will give less and less room to lies.
  • We defend and promote the right of everyone to have reliable and clear information, therefore, despite not having a Law on Access to Information, we look for the best data to make them available to readers.

Conditions for verification

there are some conditions that a text, message or photograph must comply for it to be verified:

  1. Significance of the topic. There are issues that are of interest to citizens and others that, by its very nature, are not important or interesting.
  2. Degree of "viralization" in the case of messages or notes circulating on social networks. In this case, their behavior on Twitter is analyzed, Facebook and other networks. It takes into account the number of likes it achieved and how many times it was shared.
  3. The impact and significance it achieved in the traditional media. It analyzes which media replicated the information and with what intensity.

Verification of sources

Source verification work is critical. We always look for the original sources and try to get to the source of the misinformation. In most cases, fake news is spread through sites where it is made and distributed.

Our protocol tells us the next steps we follow in each verification:

  1. We review the publication source. Who published it? when? Do you mention supposed date, scene of the incident? Are other media replicating it?
  2. We contrast information with data and facts. Whether it's a video or an image, the originals are searched: When is that image from?? Is it manipulated?
  3. We confirm the information published with the protagonist of the news. Was it there? What did he say in his speech?
  4. We look for other sources: Witnesses, event hosts or attendees.
  5. We review statistical and academic information related to the subject and consult with specialists.
  6. We always have a screenshot of the hoaxes.

The speech verification protocol (fact checking)

Our protocol for speech verification has eight steps that are fundamental and that all our journalists follow and respect. These are as follows:

  1. Select a phrase from the public sphere and/or a viral post circulating on social networks.
  2. Ponder its relevance.
  3. Consult the original source.
  4. Consult the official source.
  5. Consult alternative sources.
  6. Place in context.
  7. confirm, relativize or disprove the statement.
  8. Rate and classify the grade within the categories we work on.

We also take into account the following:

  • Publications or declarations subject to verification must have been expressed in documents, media or public areas.
  • They must be relevant to the public agenda because of the role of who issued them, by the subject matter in question or by its impact.
  • For its particular impact on the public agenda, the statements of the highest state and government authorities, whoever they are, deserve special attention from our team.
  • Bolivia Verifies does not use anonymous sources. The sources used are cited and, whenever possible, the link to the original document and data is included to make them accessible.
  • Our goal is for anyone who wants to reproduce a check and find the original data used in a note, you can do it and come to the same conclusion as Bolivia Verifies.

Categories for the classification of verifications

We work with the following four categories to classify the result of a verification:

  1. true. The claim proved to be true when contrasted with the most serious and reliable sources and data.
  2. false. The claims are unsubstantiated and not consistent with actual facts or supporting documents.
  3. deceitful. The statement may partially match certain data, but -intentionally or not- was manipulated to generate a particular message. I mean, true data is mixed with falsehoods to deceive the reader or audience.
  4. Unverifiable. They are products that do not have the necessary statistical or documentary backing with which data can be contrasted. Memes are not verifiable because they do not circulate on networks with informational product formats and are easily identifiable. No reviews are subject to verification, comments or statements of long-term commitments or projections.

 

Rectification mechanisms, correction and updating

Bolivia Verifies seeks maximum rigor, accuracy and precision in the information it disseminates. However, in case of mistake, we are committed to rectifying, update or correct.

In case a person or institution alerts us about a possible error in a note, the team will take a maximum of 48 hours to perform a review of the questioned content and, where applicable, we will publish the fix, updating or rectification.

We understand these terms as the hierarchical clarification of the amendment. “rectification” is the word used to change the initially assigned category, “correction” refers to a wrong conclusion that deserves to be reviewed but does not necessarily mean the change of category and finally “update” is the complementation of the information given when new data arise to be considered.

In the case of making any change of the aforementioned, the note shall bear an explanation specifying the modification made.

We welcome comments or notifications about any possible omission or relevant error, that is why our editors are attentive to the suggestions that are sent to your post office , messages from whatsapp or our fanpage of Facebook. Our newsletter material, podcasts and videos are also subject to our methodology and rectification.

It is also necessary to clarify that if the violation of any of the principles of the IFCN, you can contact them directly to notify you (Facebook Y Twitter).

What errors can be rectified or corrected?

A figure: Bolivia Verifies always appeals to official data or to the international convention to issue its criteria.

A place: Where there are differences between the geographical origin of the information and the data in the information.

A category: Where it is found that the assigned category does not correspond to the substance of the verification.

Any statement made by Bolivia Verifica is subject to review and in case of an error, if a clarification and/or rectification is issued. Requests for rectification may not go against the principles to which we submit, nor must they guide or censor information.

How to: Modify a Content:

The note with some error will be edited in the system and the word will be placed in the headline “update”, “correction” o “rectification”.

A first paragraph with bold and italics will put the date and then an explanation of what is being rectified. Next, a small note of one or two paragraphs with the explanation. With a separation line, the note with the error will be maintained.

The dissemination will be done again in social networks and in the note, attaching the first paragraph of the explanation.

You can review for example here

Here is the list of updates, corrections and corrections:

UPDATED NOTES (+)

1) Unitel indicated in his caption that the petardazo was against the personality of the MAS

update 11/05/20: After the publication of this verification, unitel's head of press, Ruy D'alencar, National Head of Information of the Unitel Network, he told Bolivia Verifies that "from the drafting it was possible to verify that there were two different calls one of them was the opposition to the government of Jeanine Áñez and the elections, which is the first part of the voice over and the other call was against the MAS asking that rockets be throes asking for the annulment of the legal status of the MAS".

2) First note published on 04/02/20 >> Images recorded in Peru circulate as if they were Bolivia

Note Updated on 05/02/20 >> A Facebook page in Peru spreads events that occurred in Bolivia as if they were from your country

After a thorough follow-up to the photograph, this note was updated because in Peru this photograph of an event that happened in the city of Santa Cruz was being used. This was thanks to the alert of our followers. So, apart from updating the note, also changed the category: from false to misleading.

CORRECTED NOTES (+)

correction: It is not possible to know so far if the letter from Third Parties thanking the Argentine government is false or not

correction (10:00 of the 10 July 2021). Friday night 9 of July, two new elements emerged about the alleged letter of thanks that the former fab commander, Gral. Jorge Terceros reportedly sent the Argentine ambassador, Norman Alvarez, in November of the 2019. The first of these is the certification by the Minister of Defence, Edmundo Novillo, which notes that in the Air Force archives the copy of the alleged note is found, fact that certifies and legalizes, what constitutes it in a legal document. And the second is the stamp of receipt of the note (15 November 2019) What the Argentine Embassy assures courses in your records.

The note initially found that the resignation Third Party was made the 12 November 2019, this casts doubt on that the letter was signed by him on the day 13, However, does not check.

therefore, before these new elements, the various comments from our readers and the lack of a graphological expertise oblige to withdraw the category of "false" that Bolivia Verifies consigned on Friday, until they arise new elements that allow to issue a criterion around its authenticity.

LETTERS OF AMENDMENT (+)

Bolivian scientist seeks quinine patent; but the use of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 has no who's backing

rectification: The scientist Javier Ruiz, in communication with Bolivia Verifies, he indicated that the work he is doing is to apply for the patent of chloroquine as a Bolivian product and not from China. At no point does it claim that chloroquine cures the coronavirus.