METHODOLOGY

Publishers that will be monitored by the hibrid.info platform include media (information portals), suspicious portals, and social media, based on these classifications:
– Media (information portals) that are registered as entities and whose activity is to inform the public;
– Suspicious portals that do not provide information about their activities on their pages, but that in practice publish various information that in most cases claim to be presented as media;
– Social media: accounts, pages, official pages, profiles on social media such as: Facebook, X, TikTok, Telegram, etc.

The content monitored by the hibrid.info platform will be selected according to three main criteria:
– The importance of content by focusing on the relevance of the information and the involvement of people in the information disseminated;
– The impact that the content may have on the audience due to political, socio-economic importance, etc.;
– Virality or the flow of content distribution including media, suspicious portals and social media.

The assessments on the hibrid.info platform are based on the verification of claims published in the media and the establishment of relevant facts. Fact-finding research is based on the use of reliable sources and methods, and each fact-checking analysis will be based on clearly stated sources and their links.
Among the sources that will be used in the research are the following:
– Official data
– Data and information from official websites of institutions
– Relevant media sources
– Positions of officials or institutions
– Research of relevant institutions or persons
– Expert opinions
– Data from fact-checking of other media
– And other verified sources

Fact-checking analyses represent an independent verification of various media content and not only. Each such analysis will contain: claims clearly indicated by the media reports that are reviewed and evaluated; through a clear explanation and assessment given based on the established facts and evaluation methodology and by placing the link to the original article or articles that are the source of these claims.
A fact-check analysis can address more than one original article, as long as they deal with the same topic and convey claims from each other.
Each original article that has been analyzed contains the following elements on the hibrid.info website, which ensure the permanent preservation of the evaluated content in its original form, in case it is removed or changed by the authors after verification:
– The original text of the article title, the heading and text of the article, copied in the form of a post on hibrid.info, as well as the URL of the original article;
– Original article on the media site saved in PDF, with original article URL in the document title;

One or more statements can be taken from an article. For each of them, a check is made and, based on it, an assessment is given, where the whole procedure necessarily includes the following steps: selection of the statement to be assessed – verification of the facts – presentation of the established facts – giving an assessment.
If the evaluated statements are broadcast by other media, then the analyses, in addition to the original article, will also be accompanied by articles that broadcast one or more evaluated statements.
In the case where several media outlets have broadcast the same article without citing the original source, it is identified based on the determination of the time of publication of the content. The oldest article is treated as an original article, which was broadcast in whole or in part by other media outlets. The scope and frequency of the broadcast of the statement is monitored from the moment of origin of the original content until the moment of publication of the analysis, which is clearly visible (date and time of publication of the article).
If the need arises (re-updating outdated news, continuing intensive news distribution after the published analysis, etc.), the analysis can be supplemented later with new data, with a clear indication of when, for what reason, and in what way the original content was expanded.
The statements that are evaluated are selected primarily based on what is presented as fact, also determining the way in which the information was obtained in the context of professional journalistic standards that should provide accurate information. While the platform deals with the media scene and the evaluation of claims that mainly come from the journalists themselves, i.e. the person who produces the media content.
The exception is claims that are quoted statements or paraphrases of third parties, which may also be subject to evaluation in the following cases:
– Statements quoted in the article are evaluated when they represent the source of the disputed claim and are not treated critically by the journalist. If the disputed statement is conveyed in an article that critically problematizes while respecting the standards of the profession, it will not be subject to evaluation.
– By uncritical treatment we mean that 1) the statement is questionable from a factual point of view, but is treated as fact, especially in cases where the author further elaborates on the presented thesis without checking it, questioning its veracity and providing evidence; 2) in cases where the statement is potentially harmful to certain persons/groups, the statement is presented as an established fact without contacting the other party; 3) in cases where it concerns a topic on which there is a public debate, the statement is presented as a proven fact without providing other relevant information, especially if there are known facts that do not support or challenge the thesis.
– It is understood that, when evaluating quoted statements, consideration is given to statements that purport to make factual statements, and not to those that represent personal opinions and interpretations of phenomena, i.e. statements that are clearly formulated as subjective.
– The statement may also be considered when dealing with a person whose credibility has already been called into question by previous checks or by previously known facts. The credibility of the source is noted to the extent that it is relevant to the analysis of the statement made. These are, in particular, cases where the main source is a person who has been found to mislead the public by making demonstrably incorrect claims about the subject under consideration; to falsely present themselves as experts on a particular subject or area in which they have no expertise; to misrepresent their position or status in relation to a particular subject or area (cases where persons present themselves as independent experts, although they have a clear and demonstrable personal interest in one of the opposing sides in the story); and when such statements are conveyed indiscriminately in an uncritical manner.

Claim verification, which involves applying methodological criteria to the assessments used in the platform, and determining whether (and which assessments) are relevant to the relevant claim. Once the potential applicability of the predefined criteria has been determined, verification of each individual claim is achieved in accordance with the methodology. Examples of checks for some of the assessments include:
– The identification of a fake news item is made when the investigation determines whether the information is presented in a specific factual statement, or is an incorrect statement. All facts determined by the investigation, as well as their connection to the given statement, are expressed in the explanation of the assessment.
– Identification of biased reporting which occurs when the person determines and states how the claim is contextualized by neglecting or distorting other important information, or how a particular narrative is favored over another that is against it (disrespecting the other party; omitting known facts that do not support the stated statement). Also, if the article uses anonymous sources, and: does not provide any evidence for their claims, does not clearly state that the other party was contacted for verification, or that the information was verified by another source, such actions are treated as biased reporting.
– Identification of manipulation of facts, which is done through verification and determines where an error was made in the handling of facts or the interpretation of information.
– Spin identification is done through verification that makes it possible to determine the connection between the claim being published and another event or news item, which may include a summary of other reports from the same medium on the topic, phenomenon, or actors involved in such a relationship. Examples are cases where there is a current topic or report unfavorable to some actors, which is completely ignored in a given medium; while at the same time content and reports attacking it are placed (favorable for the given actors, unfavorable for the opposing party).

The assessment is given based on the above-mentioned control.
Based on the above-mentioned check, each selected statement is classified into one of the categories defined by the methodology, i.e. it is given an appropriate rating.
Each individual rating is automatically associated with the edited article, as well as the medium that published it. An article can have more than one rating, depending on:
– How many statements are evaluated in it and
– How controversial processes are there.

The “Satire” rating includes informative content that uses literary devices such as mockery and irony to interpret various developments that occur. This in itself does not constitute a problem as long as it is made known that the content in question is satirical or the publisher is known as a satirical publisher. The purpose of including this rating in the methodology is to show that this type of content is taken for granted in certain situations regardless of the fact that it is satirical content. So in such cases, if a text fails to clarify that it has satirical content, it can be understood as true and, consequently, can create a wrong opinion in the audience.

“Clickbait” is considered to be informational content whose title is general and does not disclose the location of the event, context and relevance. Such texts and articles aim to attract the attention of the audience with sensational headlines with misleading consequences, which do not accurately clarify the content of the article. “Clickbait” headlines are mainly made to attract readability in the case of media publications and/or to earn from clicks in the case of commercial publications.

The "Error" rating is given to informational content in which, during the compilation or publication process, errors occur by publishing incorrect information (especially when dealing with information in figures) or by broadcasting poorly verified news, without the clear intention of misinforming the public.

"Biased reporting" is assessed as information content that clearly favors facts, positions and conclusions that align with a particular narrative, often disregarding the rule of contact with the other party when it comes to claims that are harmful to someone's reputation or portrayed by certain actors with a negative approach. One form of biased reporting is the selective presentation of facts, where facts that support a particular thesis are emphasized, while facts that do not confirm it are neglected.

"Conspiracy theories" are considered to be informational content that contains a false or unverifiable description of a phenomenon, event or person, presenting it as part or the result of a secret plan ("conspiracy"). The characteristic of these contents is that they present a series of claims, presented as facts, between which cause-effect relationships are established, without providing any reliable evidence.

"Pseudoscience" is defined as information content that attempts to present certain opinions, attitudes, values, or findings obtained by a non-scientific method and present them as scientific discoveries or facts. Such reports often misinterpret or manipulate existing scientific research, or refer to research that is contrary to scientific verification and fact-finding.

“Factual manipulation” is a rating given to informational content that uses facts known to be accurate but interprets them in a distorted manner. These reports typically use accurate information to draw incorrect conclusions or claims, thereby misleading consumers of media content about the actual meaning of the facts presented.

"Disinformation" is defined as information content that contains a "mix" of inaccurate sources or even half-truthful attributes, and that is created and/or distributed with the deliberate intention of causing harm. The motive behind the producers/distributors of disinformation content lies in achieving a political, financial, psychological or social goal.

The “Spin” rating is given to informational content with which the author tries to divert the public’s attention from some other content or facts that are being reported at that time. A characteristic of such content is the attempt that they occur mainly as a reaction to another media report or a current event from which someone wants to divert attention, and which is unfavorable to some actors, mainly politics. This rating is therefore specific to the fact that it may depend on external factors, such as cases where a particular medium ignores current unfavorable news on the one hand, and at the same time publishes content that is unfavorable on the other hand.

The “Fake News” rating is given to informational content that is entirely fabricated or that contains factually incorrect claims or information. Content that is rated as fake news can be defined as having been created and distributed with the intent to misinform the public, i.e., to present a claim that is completely false as fact.

This rating is given to media reports that broadcast original content from another media outlet that contains fake news. The rating is only given for broadcasting content that is categorized as fake news.

The label “Censorship” is given to informational content that results in partial or complete censoring. These are contents that are removed immediately after publication, without a clear explanation from the editorial board. In this sense, a distinction will be made between stylistic and other types of updates, given that censorship mainly refers to content that deals with political sensitivities and topics of public interest, and which have been “disappeared” without any clear reason.

The "Unverified" rating is given to those informative contents that do not provide sufficient information to confirm the claims made in the report, and which could not be verified due to certain circumstances (speed, lack of sources) during the publication of the content.

The “Deception” rating is given to informational content that is manipulated in terms of visual (deepfake, cheapfake), audio, or textual content to deceive the audience. This form of deception is usually used to produce false and manipulated content.