The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation,
quality indexes, accountability and constraints in daily work
La consolidación de las plataformas de fact-checking españolas:
internacionalización, índices de calidad, accountability y condicionantes en el
trabajo diario
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
| 73
January-June of 2026
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
How to cite this article
Moreno Gil, V. and Salgado de Dios, F. (2026). e consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes,
accountability and constraints in daily work.
Doxa Comunicación
, 42, pp. 73-97.
https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n42a2677
Victoria Moreno Gil.
Ph.D. in Journalism from Carlos III University of Madrid (2019) and a Master’s degree in Ethics
and Law in Journalism from the UNED (2011). She is an associate professor at the Communication and Media Studies
Department
at Carlos III University, and at the School of Communication and Arts of Nebrija University (Madrid). She
has been a Visiting Researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. Her research focuses on journalism ethics,
media accountability and media literacy. Recently, she is also doing research on journalism and articial intelligence
as well as journalism and gender equality. She participates in several national research projects funded by the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation. She has published in indexed journals such as
Media & Communication
,
El
profesional de la información
,
Communication & Society
,
Revista de Comunicación
and
Anàlisi
. She combines a research
career with professional journalism working as a multimedia editor at the Spanish news agency EFE.
Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain
[email protected]
ORCID:
0000-0001-7019-5884
Francesc Salgado de Dios.
Ph. D. in Journalism from the Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona (UPF, 2009). A member
of POLCOM at the same university, he was also a professor at the Communication Department (2006-2021). He has
been a predoctoral Visiting Researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE, 2007) and at the Carlos III University
of Madrid (2008), as well as a postdoctoral Visiting Researcher at La Sapienza, of Rome, (2010) and at the University of
Girona (2021-2023). His research focuses on the history of journalism –especially gender equality, transition and the
Second Spanish Republic– and on misinformation and journalistic deontology. He has edited an anthology on Manuel
Vázquez Montalbán (Mondadori, 2010) and is preparing another on the journalist Irene Polo (Renacimiento, 2025). He
has participated in several research projects, the most recent being FACCTMEDIA, which has received public funding.
He is part of the FEMMEM project (UAB, 2025-2027). He has published academic papers in indexed journals such as
Communication & Society
(2024),
Estudios del Mensaje Periodístico
(2024) or
Historia y Comunicación Social
(2023).
Pompeu Fabra University, Spain
[email protected]
ORCID:
0000-0002-3091-7587
is content is published under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. International License CC BY-NC 4.0
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
74 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
1. Introduction. e professionalization and internationalization of fact-checking
More than two decades after its nascence in the United States to verify false political discourse (Graves, 2016, 2017; Graves
et al., 2016; Nieminen & Rapeli, 2019) and later to counter disinformation on social media (Brandtzaeg et al., 2018), modern
fact-checking has moved beyond its initial novelty and become an increasingly professionalized movement with a specic
methodology characterized by its need for transparency and replicability. At the same time, fact-checking sites are marked
by a clear tendency towards innovation and the use of new technologies (Vizoso et al., 2018). is is also borne out by recent
studies on verication practices in the Mediterranean region –to which Spain belongs (López-Pan & Rodríguez-Rodríguez,
2020; Moreno-Gil et al., 2022; Palomo & Sedano, 2018; Ufarte-Ruiz et al., 2020) as well as in Spain and Latin America (Moreno-
Gil et al., 2021; Palau-Sampio, 2018; Rodríguez-Pérez et al., 2022; Vizoso & Vázquez-Herrero, 2019).
Recibido: 20/05/2024 - Aceptado: 02/12/2024 - En edición: 17/01/2025 - Publicado: 01/01/2026
Resumen:
Tras unos primeros años de actuación pública, cuatro plataformas de veri
-
cación se han consolidado en el ecosistema informativo español:
Maldita.
es
, Newtral, Vericat, y EFE Verica. Con un modelo empresarial distinto,
su trabajo común y, en cierta forma, complementario supone una primera
expresión de los esfuerzos realizados en España contra la expansión sis
-
temática de la desinformación. Esta investigación analiza los índices de
internacionalización y la calidad del trabajo de estas plataformas a partir
de los compromisos enunciados en el Código de Principios de la Interna
-
tional Fact-checking Network (IFCN), del que todas ellas son rmantes. Al
mismo tiempo, y a través de diversas entrevistas en profundidad con los
representantes de estas organizaciones, se lleva a cabo una descripción de
los esfuerzos realizados en la aplicación de dichos estándares, vinculados
con varios aspectos deontológicos básicos: transparencia, rendición de
cuentas y participación del público. Las entrevistas se realizaron tras una
observación de la metodología declarada en los sitios web de las cuatro
plataformas, así como de su práctica cotidiana de vericación. El artículo
establece un primer modelo de abordaje de la deontología del fact-checking
en relación con dicho código, que es, a su vez, el que cuenta con mayor im
-
plantación y reconocimiento global dentro del movimiento. A pesar de que
las plataformas españolas presentan algunos incumplimientos relativos a
la transparencia económica y ciertas discrepancias en cuestiones metodo
-
lógicas menores, la investigación demuestra que el grado de cumplimento
de estos parámetros deontológicos es satisfactorio y, por tanto, que su tra
-
bajo puede considerarse de calidad.
Palabras clave:
Fact-checking; vericación; desinformación; periodismo; ética; IFCN.
Received: 20/05/2024 - Accepted: 02/12/2024 - Early access: 17/01/2025 - Published: 01/01/2026
Abstract:
After their first years of public activity, four fact-checking sites
have established themselves within the Spanish information
ecosystem:
Maldita.es
, Newtral, Verificat, and EFE Verifica.
Each with a distinct business model, their collaborative and
complementary work represents the first concerted effort to
combat the spread of disinformation in Spain. This research
study assesses the internationalisation rates and quality of
work of these sites based on the commitments outlined in the
International Fact-checking Network Code of Principles. At the
same time, in-depth interviews with representatives of these
sites provide an overview of the efforts made to implement these
standards, linked to various basic ethical aspects: transparency,
accountability and public participation. The interviews were
conducted after observing the declared methodology on the
websites of the four outlets, as well as their daily fact-checking
practice. This article represents an approach to the ethics of fact-
checking in relation to the IFCN Code, which is the most widely
implemented and globally recognised framework within the
fact-checking movement. Despite some non-compliance with
economic transparency and minor discrepancies in methodology
among these Spanish outlets, the study concludes that they
satisfactorily adhere to these ethical parameters, and thus their
work can be considered of a high standard.
Keywords:
Fact-checking; verication; disinformation; journalism; ethics; IFCN.
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 75
e fact-checking phenomenon arose in Europe during the late 2000s and early 2010s, with the emergence of hundreds of
projects. Since then, the movement has undergone a certain consolidation, with 417 initiatives in over 100 countries worldwide
as of June 2023 (Stencel et al., 2023).
e organisations in question generally adhere to the two main models outlined by Graves and Cherubini (2016): the NGO
model and the newsroom model. e NGO model is more prevalent in Eastern Europe, with a few instances in the United
Kingdom and Italy, and is characterised by its more limited resources yet complete editorial and nancial independence
(Graves & Cherubini, 2016). In Spain, this model is embodied by two organisations:
Maldita.es
, which describes itself on its
website as a non-prot association with aspirations to become a foundation, and the Catalan project Vericat.
e newsroom model, on the other hand, comprises fact-checking initiatives that originated within traditional media and
has a signicant advantage “in terms of reach and resources”, according to Graves and Cherubini (2016, p. 8). However, these
initiatives are reliant on editorial decisions and nancial support from the media companies that own them. In Spain, both the
EFE Verica and Verica RTVE outlets fall within this category as they are linked to publicly owned media outlets.
A less commonly found approach that incorporates elements of the newsroom model is the for-prot fact-checking initiative,
which is not backed by legacy media outlets but rather by smaller companies with a broader focus on communication. One
such example of this business model in Spain is the start-up Newtral, which stands as the rst and sole representative of this
approach in Spain. In addition to its fact-checking services, Newtral oers a range of other communication services.
e fact-checking movement encompasses a diverse range of organisational models that reect dierent social and political
contexts, as well as journalistic ecosystems (Graves, 2016). Furthermore, modern verication sites comprise a patchwork of
structures, methodologies, and ways to present and disseminate results (Noain-Sánchez, 2021). However, certain features
common to all these outlets strengthen the transversality of the phenomenon. ese include an evident journalistic inclination
(Brandtzaeg et al., 2018; Graves, 2016; Herrero & Herrera-Damas, 2021; Moreno-Gil et al., 2022; Ufarte-Ruiz et al., 2020) and a
close association with accountability and media literacy initiatives (Amazeen, 2020; Ku
ś
& Barczyszyn-Madziarz, 2020; Riera &
Zommer, 2020). Recent studies have shown that within the Mediterranean context (Hallin & Mancini, 2004) these organisations
tend to implement robust methodologies that ensure access to information, draw on primary and ocial sources as well as
full their commitment to transparency (Moreno-Gil et al., 2022; Ufarte-Ruiz et al., 2020).
1.1. Methodological standards and codes of conduct: quality, transparency, and accountability
In 2015, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) was established by the Poynter Institute to promote the
professionalisation and internationalisation of the fact-checking movement, which were key to its consolidation, global
presence, and maturity. e IFCN Code of Principles sets out a series of best practices regarding impartiality, transparency
and accountability, the ultimate aim of which is to guarantee minimum quality standards among the signatory organisations.
e IFCN Code of Principles focuses on key commitments to transparency, including methodology, use of sources, organisation
and funding, accountability, and public participation. According to the IFCN, this set of principles seeks to promote excellence
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
76 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
in fact-checking and it adds, “We believe nonpartisan and transparent fact-checking can be a powerful instrument of
accountability journalism”. Besides unifying these criteria, the IFCN certies the quality of its signatory fact-checkers’ work.
Becoming a signatory to the IFCN code is crucial for fact-checking sites, especially in the light of the European Union’s
‘strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation”, released in 2022, which highlights in Measure 33:
“Measure 33.1. Relevant Signatories will comply with the requirements of instruments such as being veried signatories of the
International Fact-checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles or the future Code of Professional Integrity for Independent
European fact-checking organisations”.
e EU’s strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation comprises 44 detailed commitments grouped into several categories.
ese include demonetisation of information, exclusion of advertising containing disinformation, cooperation with third
parties, and promotion of media literacy initiatives to empower users, researchers, and the fact-checking community. e
code also calls for the creation of a website as a transparency centre to monitor compliance with the code.
Meanwhile, the Code of Professional Integrity for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations, developed by the European Fact-
checking Standards Network (EFCSN) in 2022, sets out three main categories of standards: Methodological Standards, Ethical
Standards and Transparency Standards. Veried members must ensure that their fact-checking is transparent, professional
and committed to the highest levels of accuracy. ey must also safeguard their impartiality, manage corrections transparently
and uphold the safety and privacy of individuals. Its members must also disclose their organisational structure, funding
sources and partnership agreements to adhere to transparency standards. ese three categories of standards bring together
several essential elements required of fact-checking organisations: transparency, accountability with the public, and third-
party empowerment.
More recently, the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), launched in 2023, has designed a Code of standards
“to ensure that organizations fact-checking misinformation and disinformation adhere to the highest standards of methodology,
ethics and transparency in order to best serve the public interest”. It comprises seven articles that focus on methodology,
ethical standards, transparency, assessment procedure and renewal, compliance and sanctions, periodical review of the code.
Our research used the IFCN Code of Principles as a reference, as it was the rst to be published and, therefore, established an
independent code of ethics for fact-checking practitioners.
Previous research has approached the topic of compliance with the IFCN code by observing the methodology included in
the platforms’ websites (in Spain, Moreno-Gil & Salgado-de Dios, 2023; and worldwide, Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2021). In
both cases, the results show high levels of compliance despite a general lack of transparency –regarding funding, nancial
information and identication of the sources’ relevant interests in the case of Spain; and the fact-checking process itself as well
as the users’ interaction. A recent study that compares the transparency of source, funds, and methodology of fact-checking
news in six countries on six continents concludes that transparency is not only related to the social environment but also to
the subject of verication and the news writing habits of each country, while the NGO model initiatives show higher levels of
compliance (Ye, 2023).
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 77
Rodríguez-Pérez et al. (2023) use the IFCN code as a reference to study the purposes, principles and diculties of fact-checking
in Ibero-America from the point of view of vericators. e study proves that most fact-checkers agree with the ethical principles
of nonpartisanship, transparency in the use of data and sources or commitment to civic responsibility, among others.
Cavaliere (2020) highlights that the commitments of the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation boosted partnerships
between signatory platforms (Google, Facebook or Twitter) and independent fact-checkers as this relation help tech giants
to comply with the principles –among them, “to develop trustworthiness indicators for new sources and prioritise authentic
content” (p. 11). According to the study, the dierent fact-checking services present signicant dierences in the way they
apply the code, in addition to diversied methodologies and a lack of transparency regarding content curation.
is study addressed for the rst time the degree of compliance of Spanish fact-checking sites with the ethical principles of the
IFCN Code, which is the most widely implemented and globally recognised framework within the fact-checking movement.
e IFCN Code of Principles includes specically ve commitments: to non-partisanship and fairness, to standards and
transparency of sources, to transparency of funding and organization, to standards and transparency of methodology and to
an open and honest corrections policy.
is study qualitatively analysed the transparency of the working methodologies, funding sources and organisational structures
of the four Spanish fact-checking outlets that are signatories of the IFCN Code:
Maldita.es
, Newtral, Vericat and EFE Verica.
It also examined aspects of accountability that are crucial to the relationship these sites have with their audience, including
formulas envisaged for channeling audience participation, eorts to promote media literacy initiatives and corrections
policies used.
With the aim of analysing the eorts made by these outlets to comply with the basic ethical standards linked to transparency,
accountability and public participation, several research questions have been included and guided the study.
RQ 1. Do the selected fact-checking sites full transparency requirements in their methodology?
RQ 2. Do they full transparency requirements regarding their use of sources?
RQ 3. Do they practice transparency in funding and organisation?
RQ 4. What new accountability features –including corrections policy–, users’ participation and media literacy initiatives
are they introducing?
RQ 5. What are the current funding models and trends regarding the presentation of verications? How important is it for
the sites to be signatories of the IFCN code?
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
78 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
2. Method
e study was conducted in two phases. First, verications published by the four sites were systematically observed during
a whole month in 2022 and 2023 (Table 1) since the analysed sites publish verications on a regular basis –either weekly or
monthly. We selected the month of September since, in Spain, is when normally the new season begins for the media, marking
the implementation of changes if any. e absence of major events –e.g. political, social or economic– that could undermine
the sample was also consider when selecting the month.
Previous studies that analysed the Spanish fact-checking outlets (Moreno-Gil et al. 2022, Moreno-Gil et al. 2021; Herrero &
Herrera-Damas, 2021; Ufarte-Ruiz et al., 2020) show dierences regarding its size and structure which can be extended to
the journalistic product they develop in terms of quantity and publication frequency. ese dierences are also noted after
reading the ‘Who we are’ sections of their respective websites: Maldita is formed by 56 professionals, while Newtral has 65
employees, and EFE Verica’s and Vericat’s working teams include 9 and 14 people, respectively –although not all the team
members are dedicated to fact-checking.
Table 1. Total number of verications published by the chosen organisations in the period described
Organisation/Number of
fact-checks
MalditaNewtral
EFE Verica
Vericat
Verications published in
September 2022
90732622
Verications published in
September 2023
97822512
Total verications advertised in
the selected period
1871555134
Source: prepared by the authors
e analysis focused on 11 categories, chosen based on the IFCN Code of Principles, which the four analysed organisations
commit to as signatories.
e ve principles established by the code were taken as a reference: commitment to impartiality and fairness, to transparency
of sources, to transparency of funding and organisation, to transparency of methodology, and to an open and honest
corrections policy. Quantiable categories and those that could not be analysed through systematic observation during the
selected period were discarded. e categories used in the observation phase are based on the specic commitments of the
IFCN Code of Principles for the ethical principles aforementioned. ey are aimed to respond to RQs 1, 2 and 4:
–
Reports on how it selects the content it intends to verify
–
Does not focus verication on only one end of the political spectrum
–
Selects statements or content based on their scope and importance and, where possible, explains why they were chosen
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 79
–
Discloses the interests of the consulted sources and any commercial relationship that could inuence the verications.
–
Identies all key sources
–
Includes the sources’ links
–
Prioritises primary sources over secondary sources (if available and appropriate)
–
Cross-checks with more sources than the one named as primary, except when it is the only relevant one
–
e conclusion is genuinely debated (it derives from data and information obtained from reliable primary sources and ex
-
perts’ contributions)
–
Whenever possible, contacts the person who made the claim or statement to seek or request evidence to support it
–
Encourages users to submit content for verication
Following a thorough reading of the verications published by the four fact-checking sites, content analysis was conducted
to identify the presence/absence of the categories. To ensure consistency of results, the authors conducted a pre-test to test
the validity of the codebook, and performed the analysis separately for subsequent sharing. ere was no disagreement in the
analysis about the presence/absence of the categories or their quantication, as the items were easy to identify. In section 3,
the results were summarized on Table 2. In addition to the content analysis, a detailed reading of the respective methodology
sections of each outlet analysed was conducted to respond to RQs 3 and 4 (
Do the outlets practice transparency in funding
and organisation?
and
What new accountability features –including corrections policy–, users’ participation and media literacy
initiatives are they introducing?
).
For the second phase of the analysis, four in-depth interviews were conducted with representatives of each fact-checking site
between June and October 2022 and the average duration was 90 minutes. e interviews aimed to gain a deeper insight into
the level of compliance observed among the analysed outlets during the rst phase of the study. rough their answers, the
sites’ representatives oer a more detailed approach to their daily work, and accountability and ethical commitments.
In depth, semi-structured interviews have been used in several recent studies on fact-checking methodology and practice
(Graves & Anderson, 2020; Ku
ś
& Barczyszyn-Madziarz, 2020; Moreno-Gil et al., 2021, Moreno-Gil et al., 2022; López-Pan
& Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2020; Palomo & Sedano, 2018; Rodríguez-Pérez et al., 2021; Singer, 2021; Ufarte-Ruiz et al., 2020).
Qualitative interviews are essential for obtaining information and context on those issues that “cannot be observed or
eciently accessed” (Tracy, 2020:79). More specically, in-depth, semi-structured interviews seek to build a depth of
understanding (Osborne & Grant-Smith, 2021), provide rich details (Wimmer & Dominick, 1994) as well as nuanced accounts
of the respondents’ perspectives, understanding, values, beliefs, which “become the primary source of knowledge” (Scalan,
2020, p. 2).
e interviews were conducted using videoconferencing tools, specically Zoom and Skype, which in recent years have become
an equitable choice rather than a secondary option compared to traditional face-to-face interviews (Deakin & Wakeeld,
2014). Moreover, video conferencing minimises geographical barriers, making it easier to conduct interviews with people who
are located in dierent regions (Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016; Mirick & Wladkowski, 2019).
80 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
For the in-depth interviews with the experts of the selected sites, a script with 23 questions (see Appendix) was developed
around the aforementioned IFCN principles. e script was later expanded in each case to add questions on specic aspects
of each site that were unclear after analysing published verications or that needed further elaboration, in addition to the
reading of the methodology and ethics statement described on each outlet’s website. ese questions also included those
related to the inclusion of explanatory texts, media literacy initiatives linked to these organisations, or the importance for
them of belonging to the IFCN, as well as those related to the annual renewal process they must go through as signatories of
the international network. In all cases, except for Vericat, one in-depth interview was sucient. With the Catalan site, two
interviews were conducted because the director, Alba Tobella, could not attend the rst interview and left it to an editor. She
was able to be interviewed on the second occasion.
ematic analysis of the interviews was conducted following the ve main ethical principles established by the IFCN Code
–commitment to impartiality and fairness, to transparency of sources, to transparency of funding and organisation, to
transparency of methodology, and to an open and honest corrections policy.
is qualitative research –based on observation and interview– shed light for the rst time on the application and degree of
compliance with the ve commitments laid down in the IFCN code of principles by the four Spanish fact-checking sites, which
are signatories. At the same time, the in-depth interviews were used to triangulate the results of observation while providing
rst-hand information on aspects linked to quality, accountability, media literacy and the constraints in the daily work of these
newsrooms in their particular ght against disinformation.
e results of the research are organised into ve sections, which are based on the IFCN Code’s ethical principles and
related to:
1. ‘Transparency in methodology’ refers to the process of selecting content for verication, including considerations of its
scope and importance. Impartiality and equity are also important factors, and organizations should avoid concentrating
their fact-checking eorts on only one end of the political spectrum. Evidence should be presented to support or undermine
claims, and attempts should be made to contact the sources of the investigated claims. Additionally, information about
editorial decision-making and the authorship of texts should be provided.
2. ‘Transparency in the use of sources’ involves disclosing any potential conicts of interest or commercial relationships that
may inuence the verication process. It also involves identifying all key sources and providing links to them, prioritizing
primary sources, cross-checking with multiple sources, and reporting any relevant interests of the sources being used.
3. ‘Transparency in funding and organization’ entails providing detailed information about the economic data of the fact-
checking outlets, as well as information about the team members involved and their commitment to refraining from
making political statements on social media. Furthermore, organizations should disclose any potential agreements or
collaborations with third parties.
4. ‘Accountability and audience participation’ involves establishing corrections policies, launching media literacy initiatives,
and facilitating audience engagement. is also entails considerations of accreditation by the IFCN, which is crucial for the
work of fact-checking organisations.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 81
5. ‘Evolution and prospects’ refers to changes in the site funding models, and trends in the presentation of verications and
user access to content are considered. Finally, organizations should reect on the importance of the IFCN and its code of
good practice in the context of the global fact-checking movement.
3. Results
e sample analysed in the rst phase of the study comprised 427 pieces –187 published by Maldita, 155 by Newtral, 51 by EFE
Verica, and 34 by Vericat in the selected period (Table 2).
Table 2. Compliance with IFCN code principles by the studied organisations in the period described based
on the observation of the verications made
CategoriesMalditaNewtral
EFE Verica
Vericat
Describes how it selects
content to verify
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Does not focus on only one
end of the political spectrum
Does not apply
as it focuses on
debunking instead
of fact-checking
political claims
Yes (25 pieces –16%–
right, 16 pieces –10%–
left)
Does not apply as it
focuses on debunking
instead of fact-
checking political
claims
Yes (7 pieces –20%–
right, 5 pieces –14%
left–)
Criteria to select content
Virality, potential
danger
Interest, relevance
(political fact-
checking).
Virality, potential
danger (debunking)
Virality, potential
danger
Interest, relevance,
potential danger
Discloses the interests of the
consulted sources
No (100%)No (100%)No (100%)No (100%)
Identies all key sources
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Includes the link
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Prioritises primary sources
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Cross-checks with several
sources when possible
Yes (100%).
In 8 pieces (4%) uses
experts –four of them
are users
Yes (100%).
In 9 pieces (6%) uses
experts
Yes (100%).
In 9 pieces (17%) uses
experts
Yes (100%). In 10
pieces (29%) uses
experts
82 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Conclusion is genuinely
debated
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Contacts the person who
made the claim or statement
No (100%) as
it focuses on
debunking instead
of fact-checking
political claims
Yes (147 pieces –95%–
when fact-checking
political claims).
No (100% when
debunking)
No (100%) as it
focuses on debunking
instead of fact-
checking political
claims
Yes (63% when fact-
checking political
claims)
No (100% when
debunking)
Encourages users to submit
content for verication
Yes (100%)
Yes (100% when fact-
checking political
claims). No (100%
when debunking)
Yes (100%)Yes (100%)
Source: prepared by the authors
e results of the observation phase show a high level of compliance in most of the analised categories (Table 2), which will be
described in detail within the corresponding sections below along with the insights obtained from the interviews conducted
with representatives of the selected fact-checking sites.
3.1. Transparency in the methodology (RQ1)
e results obtained in the rst phase of the study together with the responses from the representatives of the analised sites
show a high level of transparency regarding content selection, justication and balance, as well as the eorts to provide a solid
conclusion at the end of each fact-check– based on data and information obtained from reliable primary sources and experts’
contributions. Newtral and Vericat contact the sources when fact-checking political claims, while Maldita and EFE Verica
primarily focus on debunking. Newtral and EFE Verica provide the texts’ authorship, but Maldita and Vericat omit the byline
on their pieces since they pass through dierent lters before being published.
Besides the methodology described on their respective websites, the four analysed sites indicate how they receive or select
the claims or content to be veried above each verication piece (in 100% pieces published by the four outlets). In the case
of Maldita, the reasons for selecting content were generally its virality on social media and its potential danger. Topics are
sourced by editors or readers who send them through the site’s WhatsApp chatbot –or other channels such as the scam inbox
or email, albeit to a much lesser extent. Occasionally, the content to be veried corresponds to what was published by a media
outlet and turns out to be false or inaccurate. According to Pablo Hernández, Academic Research Coordinator at Maldita:
“When a media outlet messes up, and this generates or could generate confusion or mislead, we think it’s our duty to disprove
it, regardless of the outlet (...) And it’s normal for the media outlet to rectify it”.
e content director at Newtral, Joaquín Ortega, conrmed what was observed the rst phase, that the start-up prioritises
journalistic criteria in which a series of elements come into play –from public interest, public relevance, or the impact of the
information to the characteristics of the source and its capacity of dissemination– on parameterisation, that is, the number
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 83
of times a piece of content has been retweeted. For this site, waiting for content to go viral to intervene is not necessary, nor
advisable, because they must work “preventively”.
Regarding the verication of content published in traditional media, Newtral prefers to focus its eorts on “sites lacking
journalistic frameworks” where, despite the occurrence of errors, professional diligence “that doesn’t exist on a social media
network” is assumed. In any case, when they consider it essential to publish a text about what has been posted by other media,
“we try not to identify the source of the disinformation with names and surnames” to avoid “susceptibilities” and also unfair
“harassment campaigns” towards certain people who, in many cases, may not have been the source of the disinformation.
Vericat and EFE Verica also prioritise journalistic criteria, especially by considering the danger of disinformation and its
virality. However, both sites have particular topics or geographical areas of special interest that inuence the selection of their
content. For example, Vericat focuses on the areas of science, politics, and immigration; whereas EFE Verica pays close
attention to its Latin American area of inuence in selecting its contents, as well as certain other countries, such as Colombia
and Mexico, on which they maintain a more intense focus, as Sergio Hernández explained.
Like Maldita, Newtral fact-checks content that arrives through two main channels: the open verication service through
WhatsApp or social media networks. WhatsApp is “fundamental” to the organisation’s day-to-day work due to its “transversality
from an ideological, gender and age perspective” and to being the “main source for monitoring the temperature, receiving
alerts, knowing where people are having problems with things that are being shared” (Joaquín Ortega).
Vericat focuses on statements and claims made by politicians, whether in institutions or in the media, which are reviewed
mainly by the editors themselves, while tending to use social media networks and virality as the source of verications related
to science and immigration. e Catalan outlet avoids concentrating its fact-checking eorts on only one end of the political
spectrum, publishing a total of 7 pieces (20%) related to the right and 5 pieces (14%) to the left during the analysed period.
Maldita mainly focuses on verifying content to the detriment of political fact-checking, which is currently done sporadically,
usually coinciding with election periods. Pablo Hernández acknowledged that the site is trying to occupy a dierent and
distinctive space and that it is trying to distance itself from possible criticism regarding its impartially, which is common when
fact-checking political issues. He drew attention to the connection between narratives originating from politicians and social
media, where they nd their best mouthpiece:
ere is a sense that around politicians, groups are already being created (...) whose job is to generate noise, that is, promote the
narratives that interest each party on social media. So the politician (...) simply lets that narrative be created and take hold on social
media.
In the case of Newtral, fact-checks of political statements are not limited to the right or left of the political spectrum (25 pieces
–16%– and 16 pieces –10%–, respectively); we found examples from all political parties (in government, the opposition and,
mainly, Catalan politicians).
e organisation acknowledges two clearly dierentiated working dynamics in the editorial oce. On the one hand, the
verication of political discourse, or the “listening process”, for which they use a trained algorithm that helps locate potentially
84 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
veriable statements; on the other, the process of verifying content that arrives through social media or the WhatsApp service.
According to Joaquín Ortega, one does not take priority over the other because both are part of its “foundational DNA”.
Continuing with the methodology adopted, the qualitative analysis of the verications published by the sites showed that,
in all cases, there was sucient relevance to refute or conrm the veracity of the checked content, and the conclusion is
genuinely debated –as it is based on data and information obtained from reliable primary sources and experts’ contributions
in 100% of the analysed cases in the four outlets. Similarly, in Newtral and Maldita, it is common to nd references to previous
verications on the same topic by that site or other IFCN-aliated sites. On the other hand, EFE Verica, which deals with
content originating from dierent countries in Latin America, employs contextualisation to situate the audience within the
local context.
As previously explained, EFE Verica’s and Maldita’s fact-checking primarily concerns viral content circulating on social
media rather than statements made by politicians or prominent public gures in the economic and/or social sphere. As such,
the person making the “claim” being fact-checked is usually not contacted. is approach diers from Newtral, where the
publication of an article is contingent upon consulting with the press oce of the political party in question (in 147 pieces
–95%– when fact-checking political claims), as well as Vericat –which contacts with the source in 63% of the pieces focused
on fact-checking political claims.
According to Joaquín Ortega, politicians’ responses are extremely important for Newtral, and they are given up to three days
to respond: if one is received after the article’s publication, it is added to the piece. In addition, the contact itself is often a
very enriching experience, as it often helps the verier to realise that they had been focusing on the issue incorrectly or had
overlooked certain elements. Vericat, which is also interested in giving a voice to sources, waits up to 48 hours for a response
from the oces of the centres of political power aected by issuing questionable information.
On the other hand, regarding article authorship, or by-line policy, Maldita does not include the authors’ names who produce
the content. Among other reasons, Pablo Hernández highlighted that Maldita was set up as a non-prot organisation with
a clear vocation for public service, in which individualism takes a backseat, and all articles necessarily pass through four
lters before publication. Vericat follows the same model and does not include a by-line, as Martí Odriozola explained, “as a
reection of a work style that passes through various hands, is edited, and often involves several people”.
Conversely, Newtral justies the inclusion of a by-line in all the articles it publishes for two reasons. First, to avoid the
inconsistency that would mean alerting the public not to trust content circulating online without a by-line or known source;
and second, to acknowledge that journalists in Spain, unlike those in other countries who live in fear, they will not “get into
trouble” for doing their job. e only case when Newtral does not publish the name of the fact-checker responsible for a text is
within the framework of the collaboration with Vericat. “ere, we had to reconcile two methodologies, and in the end, they
were not teamwork, and we wanted to promote the alliance somehow,” explains Joaquín Ortega.
EFE Verica also signs its fact-checks, although it has been slowly incorporating this practice because it stems from a culture
of informative companies, as Sergio Hernández explained: “At EFE, we are used to the brand coming rst, and our signature is
not important. But transparency is always good, and I believe a by-line on a fact-checking site is better”.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 85
3.2. Transparency in the use of sources (RQ2)
e analysed sites show a high level of transparency regarding the use of sources since the four of them identify all key sources,
include the sources’ links, prioritise the use of primary sources and cross-check information with more than one source (100%
in all cases).
From the analysis of the verications published in the selected periods, it is evident that none of the four outlets studied
provides information about the interests of the consulted sources and their mutual commercial relationship (100% in all
cases). However, there is a logical explanation because they usually work with ocial sources and experts.
In the specic case of consulting experts, several examples were found in all the sites. Vericat publishes the highest number
of pieces in which the fact-checker turns to experts to clarify any aspect(s) 10 pieces, 29% of the total. For its part, EFE Verica
used information provided by experts in 9 pieces (17%) of the total published, while Maldita consulted experts in 8 pieces (4%)
–four of them being users.
Newtral acknowledges that it always consults them whenever it is exploring “new territory”, even where the data from the
primary source is evident, as the fact-checker may be unaware of the existence of other sources. is outlet consulted experts
in 9 pieces –6% of the total. e most used source in political verication is the INE (e Spanish National Statistics Institute),
which provides most of the gures that politicians try to “torture” until they say what they want them to say. In addition, to
avoid possible biases by expert opinions, a minimum of two are usually consulted.
In the case of Vericat, if it is a dubious statement, they also contact the source to request any necessary clarications, which
are then cross-checked with ocial data and, if needed, with an expert. However, as EFE Verica notes, it avoids fact-checking
certain health-related disinformation with the source, such as with Covid-19, to prevent the spread of disinformation.
Maldita also considers it counterproductive to fact-check certain coronavirus-related hoaxes that clearly appear false from
the start. In contrast, Newtral’s obligation is to combat the “search engine vacuum” by providing verications of false myths
and treatments to prevent or cure coronavirus, ensuring that citizens searching for information on the Internet nd not only
websites spreading misinformation but also truly contrasted information.
All four sites studied identify the essential information sources on which they base their articles (100%), and in all cases,
they add the link to them, usually at the end of the text (alongside a screenshot if it is a tweet, image, or video fragment, for
example). At the same time, the sites prioritise primary sources and cross-check with other sources (100% in all cases). For
example, in the case of fact-checking hoaxes maliciously attributed to political gures or relevant social media accounts, the
ocial account is traced to check the veracity of the content. If the person in question issues a denial, this is usually reected.
86 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
3.3. Transparency in funding and organization (RQ3)
In this subsection, the results are based on the detailed reading of the respective methodology sections of each outlet analysed,
along with rst-hand information gathered from the interviews with their respective representatives.
Regarding the transparency of economic data, striking dierences were found among the sites. Maldita provides the most
transparency in this area, including all its annual balance sheets and the origin of each income stream obtained, regardless
of the amount. Similarly, Vericat provides annual balance sheets and a list of entities that contribute to their budget with
amounts greater than 10,000 euros per year, which are itemised. e logos of all donor entities are also included.
Newtral does not specify all its economic gures, although it does disclose its revenues and results for the nancial year 2023,
along with some of the expenditures and investments made. When queried why it does not disclose its balance sheets or
the exact source of its earnings, Joaquín Ortega explained that this is not a concern for the organisation since the accounts
“are public and can be consulted by anyone”. Furthermore, while he acknowledges that there is speculation surrounding the
issue, he justies that the organisation is a for-prot company and complies with the minimum transparency requirements
established by the IFCN, in addition to not receiving public funding or requesting subsidies.
Collaboration agreements with other media outlets or entities are reected on the websites of both Maldita and Newtral,
although the latter does not explicitly state the number of revenues received. Maldita also includes the amount received from
subscribers in its annual balance sheets.
EFE Verica provides no economic data on its nances and the amounts obtained from its services. As it is considered a section
of the EFE news agency, it does not have its own accounts. However, it reports on its website the “remunerated agreement with
Facebook to combat disinformation on its platform”, as well as agreements and services with the IFCN and Meta (Facebook,
Instagram, and WhatsApp), although it states that “these funds are not directly intended to nance the verication service’s
activity” but are included in the EFE news agency’s general accounts. Sergio Hernández pointed out, moreover, that “verication
as a new activity is more protable than other journalistic genres”.
Regarding alliances with third parties and how this could aect the independence of the fact-checkers’ work, Pablo Hernández
(Maldita) claimed that whenever an agreement is signed, “one thing we make very clear is that we demand complete editorial
independence, we choose what to do, what not to do, and in our process, they cannot direct us in any way”. Both Vericat and
EFE Verica also expect such editorial independence.
e websites of the outlets under study include the name and photograph of all their team members, as well as a summary
of their responsibilities and/or the department they belong to and their contact information. Newtral also adds the names
and professional experience of former team members. Vericat and EFE Verica present their team members and provide
information about them, although EFE Verica omits photographs and its sta’s work email addresses. Biographies, in all
cases, are limited to each person’s training and work experience.
As for the commitment that fact-checkers do not make public statements of a political nature, which could logically call into
question their professional independence, both Newtral and Maldita follow the IFCN’s guidelines and allow journalists to
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 87
express themselves as they wish, as long as they do so on a personal basis. In this regards, Pablo Hernández (Maldita) said:
“e underlying idea of ideological diversity at Maldita is less about being all neutral, but that we seek a balance so that there
are dierent ideological sensitivities”.
Newtral claims to draw a clear distinction between a verication editor and any other type of collaborator:
No verier can ask for votes for any political party or advocate any political idea or initiative through a social media account or a
platform that identies them as such (...) And we make it quite clear before we hire someone by asking them to read the code of
principles that guide our in-house operations.
As Martí Odriozola pointed out, Vericat asks for “neutrality” when hiring editors, but it is up to each person to decide how
to interpret this. For EFE Verica, however, as a section of the EFE news agency given over to verication, there is no need for
neutrality beyond what is already expected of all the agency’s journalists.
3.4. Accountability and public participation (RQ4)
From the reading of the websites of the analysed outlets, the content analysis and the interviewees’ responses, it is noted that
their respective correction policies strive to be as transparent as possible and ensure that readers have all the information
about the piece and any modications made to it. Pablo Hernández (Maldita) said that the aim is not to hide such correction
“but to publish it as if it were normal content”.
Joaquín Ortega told us that Newtral always explains where, how and why a piece of information has been updated. Although
the outlet sometimes makes errors, it is often due to additional information received later or a delayed response from an
expert. He also drew attention to the fact that complex verications sometimes take a long time (with resulting criticism from
outside), which could explain why there is less likelihood of error.
When asked why the sites do not inform as insistently about the possibility of rectifying errors with the same emphasis as they
do, for example, with requests for participation, Maldita claims that the channels open to the audience are several and well-
known, both on the website and mainly on social media. Newtral insists that its corrections policy exists and works and that
they are is the rst interested in ensuring this is the case. Vericat also species that its channels for submitting complaints are
clear and follow the IFCN model.
Regarding the right to rectication, Maldita acknowledged that they have occasionally received calls from politicians requesting
them to amend inaccurate information, although this happens much less often since they moved away from the “political fray”.
Martí Odriazola from Vericat also remarked on the importance of verifying information about statements made by authorities
and politicians, as they pay close attention to the results, an inuence that denes the sites’ identity and role.
On the other hand, EFE Verica approaches user complaints in an entirely dierent way from the other three sites analysed.
As part of a major organisation, the EFE news agency, this outlet refers complaints and corrections to the channels of the
organisation it belongs to, as explained on its website, rather than through its own specic channel on its own website, as
required by the IFCN guidelines. However, its website does include some examples –three at the time of observation– of
verications that were corrected following a formal complaint. While these do not seem like many given its uptime, Sergio
88 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Hernández attributed this again to the “company culture”, which prefers to wait a little longer, but be more rigorous in its
checks, something he associates with EFE’s “informational conservatism”. In any event, the verication it carries out for
Facebook originates over the telephone, and the nal decision is made externally to EFE Verica.
Newtral insists it has never received a formal right-to-rectication request, which it believes may be due to two factors. First,
the verications they perform are on clear-cut topics with no room for interpretations or, therefore, a dierent explanation by
the politician. Second, the outlet always calls the communications oce in question, oering the possibility to justify their
data.
Regarding media literacy, Maldita Educa has launched various initiatives to reach all segments of the population, particularly
“the two age extremes: the elderly and the young” (Pablo Hernández). To reach a younger audience, their site is on Twitch and
TikTok.
Newtral also sees media literacy as a cornerstone of its strategy: “In the articles themselves, we try to explain to people why
we drew the conclusions we did, and we explain what tools we used so that they themselves can learn with a single fact-check
how we reached that conclusion,” said Joaquín Ortega, who acknowledges that there is currently only one person in charge of
the Newtral Education project. However, this has not prevented Newtral from launching a master’s degree in fact-checking in
collaboration with the San Pablo CEU University, holding regular talks in schools and institutes, as well as helping students
with their nal degree and master’s degree projects.
Vericat focuses a good deal of its strategic objectives on media literacy initiatives. Alba Tobella explained that the teaching
materials they have designed for secondary school education (Desfake) are based on using TikTok against disinformation and
are complemented by performances, conferences and courses for teenagers. Vericat also carries out media literacy activities
for the elderly. Five of the 16 editorial sta members are tasked with these various agreements and services, and media literacy
has become a core factor in the site’s growth.
e interviews conrmed that audience involvement is essential for the fact-checkers as it provides them with a good portion
of the content they verify, creating “a core of committed collaborators” (Pablo Hernández). e website frequently makes calls
for collaboration, which are regularly reiterated. For example, Maldita, EFE Verica and Vericat request user participation
at the bottom of each website page. For its part, Newtral seeks participation through social media networks (Twitter and
Facebook), WhatsApp and Menéame, in addition to the possibility of commenting on published verications –although it only
asks directly for the readers’ participation when carrying out political fact-checks.
As Newtral and Maldita point out, the prevalence of hate speech on social media may lead to a certain amount of toxic
interventions, although it does not detract from the interest and the collaboration they receive. Joaquín Ortega assures that the
“citizen journalist-user relationship” provides positive feedback.
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 89
3.5. Evolution and prospects (RQ5)
Despite the attention given to audience engagement, subscriptions are gradually becoming a less substantial part of the sites’
funding resources. However, funding is generally growing thanks both to contributions from various private and public entities
focusing on combating disinformation, as well as the sale of services to major social media companies that commission and
pay for verifying certain types of viral information that fall within the fact-checkers’ spheres of inuence. Even EFE Verica,
whose business culture has always involved selling services to other companies, has entered into a collaboration agreement
with Meta.
e second main source of funding that has been increasing in recent years comes from media literacy courses and initiatives,
which have found a reliable and constant form of funding from various administrations, allowing them to reach an increasing
number of citizens. is trend is crucial, for example, for Vericat, which has already developed a programme to implement
educational activities in secondary schools, accompanied by a remote advisory system that has become, according to Alba
Tobella, “the strategic axis of the organisation’s growth”. At the same time, donations are now “residual”. Only Maldita’s budget
continues to rely almost exclusively on individual contributions.
e four fact-checking outlets have also evolved from conducting verications to creating systems for storing and reusing the
knowledge generated in successive verications. In addition, they have implemented storage systems organized by themes,
with added options for ltering and advanced search capabilities by keywords or tags for quick and easy access.
In addition to enhanced search options, there is a trend towards the development of more elaborated yet simple and
instructive texts containing basic informational content on specic areas. ese “explanatory” texts typically address essential
information repeatedly used in previous verications on subjects that are traditionally the focus of much disinformation, such
as immigration or health. From this basic information, simple presentations are developed to counter the more prevalent
forms of disinformation, which are often recurrent. ey can sometimes be in the form of frequently asked questions or doubts
for easy consultation by any user. Vericat’s section on immigration, for example, presents essential data on Spain and provides
initial information to counter the most common misinformation in just a few minutes of reading.
According to Newtral, these explanatory texts arise from users’ doubts sent to the WhatsApp service, “things that aren’t
very clear, or that require so much context and information that it’s impossible to summarise it in a rating”. Maldita uses the
explanatory reports “serve to ll the gap that arises from always being late and always trailing disinformation”, providing “tools
for the public to combat disinformation”.
e interviewees agreed on the importance of the IFCN’s international network for their work. According to Pablo Hernández,
it “provides a certicate of credibility”. Joaquín Ortega believes the network has conferred quality and uniqueness to the fact-
checking profession, as well as a spirit of constant collaboration that is atypical in other information ecosystems. EFE Verica
even suggests a future in which international collaboration increases, citing the recent creation of a European network of eight
digital media and disinformation observatories of supranational collaboration carried out in autumn 2022, in which Spain has
been included in Iberier.
90 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Regarding the annual verication processes carried out by the IFCN to accredit sites, Newtral denes the process as an
“extremely transparent process that helps both parties”. Maldita acknowledges that having a developed methodology and
being with the IFCN for some time helps pass these annual reviews almost “eortlessly”.
4. Discussion
is research proves a high level of compliance with the IFCN Code of Principles among the four Spanish fact-checking sites
that are signatories by using a triangulation method –based on content analysis, observation and semi-structured interviews–
that goes beyond previous studies on the topic based on the observation of the methodology included in the platforms’ websites
(Moreno-Gil & Salgado-de Dios, 2023; Torres-Toukoumidis et al., 2021) as well as others focused on dierent geographical
areas (Rodríguez-Pérez et al., 2023; Ye, 2023).
e results of this study prove a high level of compliance with the IFCN Code of Principles among the four Spanish fact-
checking sites that are signatories. However, there are some dierences, especially those related to transparency in funding
and organisation. e analysis also shows key ndings regarding their level of maturity, current funding sources and new
formats linked to media literacy eorts.
All four Spanish fact-checking sites excel in terms of their commitment to transparency of methodology (RQ1). Broadly
speaking, when selecting content to verify, journalistic criteria and potential virality and danger of the content are prioritised,
which typically arrive through two main channels: the WhatsApp chatbots open to readers, and social media. Eorts are
concentrated on verifying questionable online content rather than monitoring possible errors in reputable media outlets.
While political fact-checking remains one of the sites’ main remits, the trend is towards fact-checking hoaxes and bogus
content on social media and private messaging channels. While the editors of Maldita and Vericat do not sign the content
they publish, EFE Verica and Newtral do.
Without exception, the platforms demonstrate high compliance regarding transparency in the use of sources (RQ2). Primary
and ocial sources are consulted as a priority, and links to them are included. In addition, the studied organisations usually
consult experts when the subject is new to them, when doubts arise, or when they need to conrm something while running the
verication. When fact-checking politicians, Newtral and Vericat always oer them the opportunity to clarify their position
before the verications are published. None of the sites, however, discloses the interests of the consulted sources (Moreno-Gil
& Salgado-de Dios, 2023), which could be explained by the fact that they rely mainly on primary sources.
ere are notable dierences regarding transparency in funding and organisation (RQ3), where EFE Verica and Newtral do
not provide a detailed account of all their funding sources or annual balance sheets (Moreno-Gil & Salgado-de Dios, 2023).
However, all four outlets do list the most relevant collaboration agreements with third parties. As for the “neutrality” required
of their personnel, although there is some disparity of opinions, they are usually required not to make any overt statements on
social media about their ideology or political leanings when presenting themselves as fact-checkers.
All the sites scrupulously follow their corrections policy and rectify errors openly and transparently (RQ4). However, they
do not recall having received requests to correct errors based on the exercise of the right to rectication since the outlets’
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 91
audience usually alerts them to errors. e companies are all rmly committed to fostering media literacy (RQ4) among their
audiences through training courses in various areas and incorporating new formats, such as explanatory material. ey are
all also aware of the need to involve the public throughout the verication process as “content providers” and “watchdogs”
against disinformation.
As a result of all the above, and specically in relation to the IFCN Code of Principles, there is no evidence from this study
proving that the transparency of the NGO model is much higher than that of the newsroom model as Ye do point out (2023).
According to the interviewees, users’ participation (RQ4) remains as one of the pillars of their activity since readers provide
a good part of the content they verify. However, the role of audiences of fact-checking sites is also undened. Indeed, these
outlets are served by information and communication professionals rather than the public, who do not appear to be regular
consumers of these websites, but rather promoters of information that may concern them. Consequently, the concept of
audience is far from being dened and seems to be dissociated from the sites’ funding. e actual audience will depend on the
strategies of the verication outlets, which could consist of the people who are part of their social media community or those
who access the media literacy activities, which are gaining in popularity and becoming ever more widespread. Despite the
uncertainties identied, the general tenor of the interviews was optimistic about the initial growth and the international and
even academic collaboration in the ght against misinformation.
Our study on the four fact-checking sites, founded between 2018 and 2019, indicates they have overcome the initial uncertainty
associated with the creation of a new information agent in Spain. is early consolidation has been achieved thanks to their
ability to obtain funding (RQ5) from various public and private institutions, both Spanish and supranational. ese outlets
are not growing thanks to grassroots participation solely, as indicated by the balance sheets and conrmed by the interviewed
directors, but rather by external funding, sometimes public and sometimes produced in exchange for agreements with major
international social media players such as META (Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram), Twitter or TikTok, which hire them
to verify their own content. e second main source of funding comes from media literacy courses and initiatives, which
have become an inherent part of these sites’ activity. Among the new trends (RQ5) within Spanish fact-checking, there is
the implementation of storage systems to improve advanced searchers or the development of explanatory pieces to combat
narratives of disinformation. Finally, all the respondents agreed on the importance of being part of the IFCN since it provides
a certicate of credibility and quality to their work.
5. Conclusions
e results of this study prove that, despite some shortcomings in source verication and economic clarity, the Spanish
fact-checking platforms’ compliance with international principles on transparency –regarding methodology, sources, and
accountability– is of a high standard (Moreno-Gil & Salgado-de Dios, 2023; Ye, 2023). Furthermore, they show new ways to
improve users’ access and boost their ght against disinformation –e.g. with new formats such as explanatory pieces. All of
them value the IFCN accreditation very positively as they consider the network to have conferred quality and uniqueness to
the profession.
92 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
Nevertheless, the dependence of these sites on external funding from social media giants, such as META, Twitter or TikTok,
raises serious concerns. Despite the potential for growth opportunities they oer, these agreements introduce a primary risk
factor that will need to be investigated in the immediate future. On the one hand, the vast amounts of information that these
companies accumulate may monopolise the work of fact-checker sites to the point of co-opting them, thus undermining the
original objective of these organisations, which is focused on controlling the quality of the information in Spain. Moreover, some
of these agreements may condition both the economic balance and the transparency of these outlets since, as the interviews
conrmed, they could contain condentiality clauses that would be at odds with the IFCN’s principles of transparency.
Although new studies are needed in other geographical contexts to demonstrate the extrapolation of the main results of this
research, this study should be understood as a model with which to approach the ethics of fact-checking in relation to the IFCN
code of good practices, the rst professionally established and the most internationally recognised within the movement.
Future research on this question should address compliance by fact-checking organisations with other ethical codes in Europe
and internationally. Furthermore, this article paves the way for an in-depth analysis of the challenges that fact-checkers face
in complying with these ethical and quality standards.
6. Acknowledgements
is article has been translated into English by Mark Lodge to whom we are grateful for his work.
is article has been developed within the research project “Instruments of accountability against disinformation: Impact of
Fact-checking platforms as accountability tools and curricular proposal” funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation
(FACCTMedia, PID2019106367GBI00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033).
7. Specic contributions of each author
Name and Surnam
e
Conception and design of the workVictoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
Methodology
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
Data collection and analysisVictoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
Discussion and conclusionsFrancesc Salgado de Dios and Victoria Moreno Gil
Drafting, formatting, version review and approvalVictoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 93
8. Conict of interest
e authors declare that there is no conict of interest contained in this article.
9. Bibliographic references
Amazeen, M. A. (2020). Journalistic interventions: e structural factors aecting the global emergence of fact-checking.
Journalism, 21
(1), 95-111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917730217
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Chaparro-Domínguez, M-Á. (2018). How journalists and social media users perceive online fact-
checking and verication services.
Journalism Practice, 12
(9), 1109-1129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1363657
Cavaliere, P. (2020). From journalistic ethics to fact-checking practices: Dening the standards of content governance in the ght
against disinformation.
Journal of Media Law, 12
(2), 133-165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486
Deakin, H., & Wakeeld, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reections of two PhD researchers.
Qualitative Research, 14
(5), 603-616.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126
Graves, L. (2016). Boundaries not drawn: Mapping the institutional roots of the global fact checking movement.
Journalism
Studies, 19
(5), 613-631.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1196602
Graves, L. (2017). Anatomy of a fact check: Objective practice and the contested epistemology of fact checking.
Communication,
Culture & Critique, 10
(3), 518-537.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12163
Graves, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2020). Discipline and promote: Building infrastructure and managing algorithms
in a ‘structured journalism’ project by professional fact-checking groups.
New Media and Society, 22
(2), 342-360.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819856916
Graves, L., & Cherubini, F. (2016). e rise of factchecking sites in Europe. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
http://bit.ly/47uFBci
Graves, L., Nyhan, B., & Reier, J. (2016). Understanding innovations in journalistic practice: A eld experiment examining
motivations for fact-checking.
Journal of Communication, 66
(1), 102-138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12198
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: ree models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867.003
Herrero, E., y Herrera Damas, S. (2021). El fact-checker en español alrededor del mundo: Perl, similitudes y diferencias entre
vericadores hispanohablantes. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, (54), 49–77.
https://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2021.54.e725
Ku
ś
, M., & Barczyszyn-Madziarz, P. (2020). Fact-checking initiatives as promoters of media and information literacy: e case of
Poland.
Central European Journal of Communication, 13
(2), 249-265.
https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.13.2(26).6
Lo-Iacono, V., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. K. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews.
Sociological Research
Online, 21
(2), 103-117.
https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
94 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
López-Pan, F., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. M. (2020). El fact checking en España. Plataformas, prácticas y rasgos distintivos.
Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 26
(3), 1045-1065.
https://doi.org/10.5209/esmp.65246
Mirick, R. G., & Wladkowski, S. P. (2019). Skype in qualitative interviews: Participant and researcher perspectives.
e Qualitative
Report, 24
(12), 3061-3072.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3632
Moreno-Gil, V., & Salgado-de Dios, F. (2023). El cumplimiento del código de principios de la International Fact-checking
Network en las plataformas de vericación españolas. Un análisis cualitativo.
Revista De Comunicación, 22
(1), 293-307.
https://doi.org/10.26441/RC22.1-2023-2971
Moreno-Gil, V., Ramon-Vegas, X., & Mauri-Ríos, M. (2022). Bringing journalism back to its roots: Examining fact-checking
practices, methods, and challenges in the Mediterranean context.
Profesional de la Información, 31
(2).
https://doi.org/10.3145/
epi.2022.mar.15
Moreno-Gil, V., Ramon-Vegas, X., & Rodríguez-Martínez, R. (2021). Fact-checking interventions as counteroensives to
disinformation growth: Standards, values, and practices in Latin America and Spain.
Media and Communication, 9
(1), 251-263.
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3443
Nieminen, S., & Rapeli, L. (2019). Fighting misperceptions and doubting journalists’ objectivity: A review of fact-checking
literature.
Political Studies Review, 17
(3), 296-309.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918786852
Noain-Sánchez, A. (2021). Desinformación y Covid-19: Análisis cuantitativo a través de los bulos desmentidos en Latinoamérica
y España.
Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 27
(3), 879-892.
https://doi.org/10.5209/esmp.72874
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2021). In-depth interviewing. In S. Baum (Ed.),
Methods in Urban Analysis, Cities Research
Series
(pp. 105-125).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1677-8_7
Palau-Sampio, D. (2018). Fact-checking and scrutiny of power: Supervision of public discourses in new media platforms from
Latin America.
Communication and Society, 31
(3), 347-365.
https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.347-363
Palomo, B., & Sedano, J. (2018). WhatsApp como herramienta de vericación de fake news. El caso de B de Bulo.
Revista Latina
de Comunicación Social, 73
, 1384-1397.
https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2018-1312
Riera, A., & Zommer, L. (2020). Using fact checking to improve information systems in Argentina.
e Political Quarterly, 91
(3),
600-604.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12895
Rodríguez-Pérez, C., Paniagua-Rojano, F. J., & Magallón-Rosa, R. (2021). Debunking political disinformation through
journalists’ perceptions: An analysis of Colombia’s fact-checking news practices.
Media and Communication, 9
(1), 264-275.
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3374
Rodríguez-Pérez, C., Seibt, T., Magallón-Rosa, R., Paniagua-Rojano, F. J., & Chacón-Peinado, S. (2023). Purposes, principles,
and diculties of fact-checking in Ibero-America: Journalists’ perceptions.
Journalism Practice, 17
(10), 2159-2177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2124434
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 95
Scalan, C. L. (2020). Preparing for the unanticipated: Challenges in conducting semi-structured, in-depth interviews.
Sage
Research Methods Cases
.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529719208
Singer, J. B. (2021). Border patrol: e rise and role of fact-checkers and their challenge to journalists’ normative boundaries.
Journalism, 22
(8), 1929-1946.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920933137
Stencel, M., Ryan, E., & Luther, J. (2023). Misinformation spreads, but fact-checking has leveled o. Poynter, June 21.
https://bit.ly/3PCWXwX
Torres-Toukoumidis, A., Lagares-Díez, N., & Barredo-Ibáñez, D. (2021). Accountability journalism during the emergence of
COVID-19: Evaluation of transparency in ocial fact-checking platforms. In
Marketing and Smart Technologies
(pp. 561-572).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4183-8_44
Tracy, S. J. (2020).
Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact
. Wiley Blackwell.
Ufarte-Ruiz, M. J., Anzera, G., & Murcia-Verdú, F.-J. (2020). Independent fact-checking platforms in Spain and Italy: Features,
organisation and method.
Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 11
(2), 23-39.
https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM2020.11.2.3
Vizoso, Á., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2019). Fact-checking platforms in Spanish: Features, organization and method.
Communication
and Society, 32
(1), 127-142.
https://doi.org/10.15581/003.32.1.127-144
Vizoso, Á., López-García, X., & Pereira-Fariña, X. (2018). Technological skills as a key factor in the prole of the fact checker for the
verication of information in the network society.
Estudos em Comunicação, 27
(1), 105-126.
https://doi.org/10.20287/ec.n27.v1.a07
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994).
Mass media research: An introduction
(4th ed.). Wadsworth.
Ye, Q. (2023). Comparison of the transparency of fact-checking: A global perspective.
Journalism Practice, 17
(10), 2263-2282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2023.2211555
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
<p>[Enlace de URL / hc (has AS)]</p>
96 |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
|
January-June of 2026
The consolidation of Spanish fact-checking sites: internationalisation, quality indexes, accountability and constraints...
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
doxa.comunicación
10. Appendix
Interview script
Commitment to impartiality and fairness
1.
Do you consider that the selection criteria for verifying viral statements content to be veried are adequately dened? Are
they applied consistently and without exception?
2. Where is the line drawn between political fact-checking and viral content verication? Which one does your organisation
prioritise more?
3. When content be considered viral? How are the criteria of journalistic interest and relevance applied?
4. Can people working for the outlet freely express their opinions as members of civil society? Where should the limit be set,
and where does the organisation they represent draw the line?
5. What criteria does the site adopt when signing verications, and why?
Commitment to standards and transparency of methodology
6. What criterion do you use to measure the reach and importance of the content being veried?
7. How do you measure impact or virality? Do you monitor the ‘temperature’ of the content you receive through WhatsApp
and other channels (such as social media)?
8. What problems and positive aspects do you encounter in your day-to-day interactions with the public?
9. Do you always contact the person making the claim before publishing the verication?
10. Do you verify disinformation published by other media? Why or why not?
11. Do you link to the source of controversial information when dealing with viral content about Covid-19? Would this not be
a way of giving publicity to harmful sources?
Commitment to standards and transparency of sources
12. What type of sources do you use most frequently?
13. When do you consider it necessary to consult experts?
doxa.comunicación |
nº 42, pp. 73-97
January-June of 2026
Victoria Moreno Gil and Francesc Salgado de Dios
ISSN: 1696-019X / e-ISSN: 2386-3978
| 97
Commitment to transparency in funding and organisation
14. Does your organisation comply with the IFCN commitment to specify each source of funding that represents 5% or more
of total revenues from the previous scal year?
15. Is the company’s business relationship and any agreements with third parties reected on the website?
Commitment to an open and honest corrections policy?
16. Do you believe the channel for submitting complaints and corrections is visible enough on the website?
17. How are corrections managed, and how many do you receive?
18. What happens when you have to modify a verication because an error was made, which also changes the verication
result?
19. Have you received any requests under the right to rectication?
Other questions
20. Do you produce explanatory texts? If so, which ones and for what purpose?
21. Have you collaborated on or launched any media literacy initiatives? Which one(s)? What importance do you attach to
media literacy?
22. Why is membership in the IFCN important for the organisation?
23. What requirements does the IFCN expect the site to full, and what does the annual certication renewal procedure
involve?