METHOD
How we check
Every check follows the same path: claim, source, data, context, rating. No step is skipped, whoever made the claim. This page explains each step so that you can check our work instead of having to believe it. Not louder. More precise.
What we check and how we choose
We check factual claims made by people and institutions that carry public responsibility or have public reach: governments, parliaments, parties, authorities, associations, media. When choosing, we ask: how many people does the statement reach? Does it influence a public decision? Can it be checked against primary sources? And over time: are we checking all sides? An overview of the statements we have checked, by speaker and by section, is at the end of this page.
What we do not check: opinions and value judgements, forecasts, satire, statements by private individuals, statements from the private sphere.
The path of every check
„Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich.“
- Claim. We record exactly what was said, word for word, with date, place and page reference: the plenary record with its page, the broadcast with its time code, the post with its address and the date we retrieved it. A summary by the editorial team stands separately beside it and is marked as such. We mark omissions with [...]. We check the sentence someone said, not the sentence we ascribe to them.
- Source. We look for the primary source: the document itself, not the report about it. At least two sources, at least one of them primary, each with a page reference: page, table, margin number, time code. What the speaker names as evidence we check first. What we quote, we quote verbatim.
- Data. We read what the sources actually say, and we do the arithmetic. Where we calculate, we show the calculation. Where we show a chart, the data series stands beneath it with its source and the date of retrieval. We also name data that argue against our later rating.
- Context. We ask what is missing: a yardstick, a period, a reference quantity, a definition, an adjustment for inflation, an offsetting calculation. Missing context is itself evidenced, not asserted. Missing context is a finding, not an insinuation.
- Rating. We choose one of the seven levels by its published definition and give reasons for each step: which data tipped it and what spoke against the neighbouring level. The rating refers solely to the claim that was checked, never to a whole text, a person or a news outlet. We rate statements, not people. We impute no intentions.
Before publication
Before we publish, we give the person or institution whose statement we are checking the chance to comment. The answer, or the absence of one, appears in the fact check. We name the date, the channel and the deadline of our enquiry. If in exceptional cases we make no enquiry, for instance because the statement turns out to be correct and nobody is burdened by the check, the reason appears in the same place in the fact check.
Second check
No fact check appears without a second person from the editorial team having checked the sources and the rating.
As long as the editorial team is one person, the same person checks and publishes. Every piece affected carries this note visibly. As soon as a second account exists, the second check applies again.
The seven ratings
We rate the statement, never the person. Six levels say how well a statement is covered by primary sources. The seventh level sits outside the scale: it says that we do not know.
| Rating | Definition | When we give it | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| The central statement is refuted by primary sources. | The sources contradict the claim at its core, and we show that sentence by sentence. Every figure we set against the claim carries its page reference in the source list. | It does not mean “a lie”. A lie requires intent. A statement can be false because someone was mistaken, used outdated figures or misunderstood something. Whether that was the case we cannot check, and we do not claim it. | |
| The core is false, a side aspect holds. | The load-bearing statement contradicts the primary sources. Part of it, a starting figure or a date, is correct and cannot be separated out without losing the sense. | The correct part does not save the statement; this level is not a “half true”. Nor does it mean that the person who said it is untrustworthy. We rate this one statement, not a person’s whole work. | |
| Individual details may be correct, the overall impression created is not carried by the data. | The selection, the connection or the presentation of the details suggests a conclusion the sources contradict: through a skewed selection, a false comparison, an unsuitable period or a link that does not exist in the data. The fact check always names the mechanism: which impression arises, which omission or which wrong yardstick creates it, and why the data do not support it. | It does not mean that every figure in the statement is wrong. It is no judgement about intent or character. Whether someone meant to mislead we cannot know, and we do not claim it. | |
| The statement is correct, but without further information it creates a skewed picture. | The figure or the fact is right. What is missing is a yardstick, a period, a reference quantity, a definition or an offsetting calculation that anyone needs in order to place the statement correctly. The missing context is itself evidenced in the fact check. | It does not mean that the context was left out on purpose. We do not examine intentions. Nor does it mean that the statement is false. | |
| The core holds, details are imprecise. | The main statement is evidenced. A figure is rounded, outdated or slightly off, a period or an attribution is imprecise. The imprecision does not change the overall impression. | It does not mean “almost false”. Anyone hearing the statement is not led astray. If the core wobbles, it is a different level. | |
| The statement is evidenced by primary sources. | The central detail and the way it is placed agree with the primary sources. Nothing material is missing that would change the impression. | It says nothing about whether the statement is wise or important, or whether the demand someone derives from it is right. We rate the factual claim, not the politics behind it. | |
| There is not enough evidence for or against the statement. | After a documented search we found no primary source that supports or refutes the statement, and the person who made it named no evidence when asked. The fact check describes which sources we searched and what the answer was. | This does not mean the statement is false. It means we found no evidence. As soon as there is some, we check again. |
Two levels lie between true and false: MISSING CONTEXT and MISLEADING. MISSING CONTEXT is the milder one, because the statement itself is correct. MISLEADING is the stricter one, because the overall impression contradicts the data. This order is an editorial decision. NOT VERIFIABLE sits outside the scale: it is no judgement about the statement, but a statement about the state of the evidence.
The result in 30 seconds
Every fact check opens with a summary in two to five plain sentences. It names the claim, the rating and the main reason. It is for people who have little time. It does not replace the reasoning, and it contains nothing that is not evidenced further down.
Which documents go into the source register
The register of primary sources holds every document quoted in a published piece. We do not rate documents; we show what we relied on, with publisher, date, page reference and date of retrieval. We keep a public copy only where the licence allows it; otherwise the link to the original has to do. The rules behind this are in the source standard.
Dealing with uncertainty
When data are ambiguous, we say so. When two reputable sources contradict each other, we show both. Where data are provisional, it says “provisional”. When we do not know something, we write “we do not know”, instead of talking around it. A fact check that hides uncertainty is itself misleading.
We rate statements, not people
We impute no intentions. We do not use words like “lie”, because we cannot look inside anyone’s head. We rate what was said, and we show why it holds or does not.
How to contradict us
If you know a source we have missed, or you find an error, write to info@mbgglobal.com. We check every report and answer within two working days. Anyone affected by a factual claim in our pieces can demand a reply. Our corrections policy describes the way.