Picture: Screen capture on Gard Steiro, VG CEO commenting the need of special Fact-Checking newsroom independent to his media for Fact-checking along the Paula Tod documentary Factlash (2020) - see the extract here: _https://youtu.be/aKlDdhBXc0A?t=228_

Why Faktisk.no? Views from commercial media

Unedited interview with Gard Steiro, Editor-in-chief and CEO of VG, Member of the Board Faktisk.no & Einar Hålien, Editor,  Schibsted Norway. Carried out online the 25th of August 2020 by Mikko Salo, Founder of Faktabaari & checking Faktisk.no for Finnish media (verbatim report with underlined parts highlighted by Salo for busy readers)
 
**Q Mikko to Gard: **
How do you see what Faktisk is needed for – especially now for “Infodemics”? 
****Mikko to Einar**:  Same from corporate side?**
 
Gard: 
Faktisk started as joint venture between VG and Dagbladet and we are main competitors, why I believe this is the first time we really collaborated in journalism. We have collaborated in distribution and in the printing industry but never in journalism. 
 
It started in 2016 elections in US where both we saw the factchecking industry played a major role in American journalism and fought fake news as well. 
 
We understood that fighting fake news is not just fact-checking politicians and the discussion in the traditional media …but it is [also] about identifying misinformation in the social media and on other platforms.
 
My experience on this was that we had run fact-checking in Bergens Tidende (time when Einar was there as Editor and in times of elections) so we had tried fact-checking inspired by US fact-checkers in BT, but it was difficult to do it in between the elections and all through the year. It was difficult to get enough resources, right competences and to run it as a day to day business.  So, when we [VG] started with the Dagbladet the discussion was, that this was not the part of journalism we wanted to compete but was  a task where we could cooperate and strengthen our efforts against fake news if we collaborated. 
 
And it was also important that it did not end up a competition in between traditional media where our fact-checking efforts were better or worse than others. So we needed a newsroom where we had not just one or two fact-checkers but had experts in fact-checking. 
 
For us it was extremely usefulto have a public broadcaster as partner, not just because of distribution. We thought that if we would have built joint service without them, they would have to build a competitive fact-checking organization. So it was important to have them [public broadcaster] as partner and also they could spend money on this with another argument than us.
 
So, we started with the three of us [VG, Dagbladet, NRK] and many ask why did we not invite all parties from the start? But we thought it was easier for us to build the foundations where people could ask whether they want to be part of it or not rather than discussing with several partners.  To get it first up and get it running while then asking other partners to join. 
 
And of the question I hear most from people from abroad is that what is in it for me?
 
There are two things: First of all, it is a part of our task in the society to spread right information, to fight misinformation and contribute to the democracy in this way…so when we spend a million krona [about 100 000 EUR annually] it is the same as having a reporter at the newsroom. I mean I get more bang for the bucks
 
By investing in Faktisk. I believe I get more in this that investing one more rapporteur in my newsroom. So, what do I get more of this in the daily work….well we get quality content. 
 
To us this is not the type of content [fact-checks] to put behind the paywall or compete. The beautiful thing about Faktisk is that their mission is to reach out to as many people as possible. Moreover as editor-in chief of VG,  one of the media outlets in Norway, I get quality content from Faktisk every day…and also if we do anything wrong in our newspaper they [Faktisk] will point it out…they will factcheck us and that is important ….that is also part of the mission and it is written in the ethical guides of VG that we are supposed to factcheck each other…so when you ask why are we doing this ….it is part of our mission to society and it is a great way to invest in quality content.
 
Mikko:
Thank you. Where the elections the trigger to get started? Did that help? And if you would need to reinvent the Faktisk now in the middle of the infodemics and economic downturn while there seems to be more and more interest on this…has it changed the need of the service now? Yes, Kristoffer’s [[Faktisk.no](http://xn--aktisk-2tb.no) Editor-in-chief] job but….I am trying to see the momentum from Editors point of view.
 
Gard, VG:
The Faktisk reason to be is even stronger today than it used to be 2016, because what we saw in American elections is now part of the situation in Europe and in Nordics…so the problems with fake news is not such a big problem in Norway (as in US) but what we see in social media is that there is a huge work to be done to identify and fight the spread of misinformation in social platforms….that this need is even stronger than it was in 2016 and we have now the same tendencies like Norway like in American politics. And  the [Faktisk] reason to be is even stronger….BUT if we would have started it once again maybe what we see now and what we did not see historic is that you need to discuss whether or not you need to collaborate with social platforms that is one of the most difficult questions. That is also the question that needs to be answered and you should be asking if it is your role to fact-check traditional media – is that part of the role or not? This is part of discussion.
 
I think one thing we are planning to do with Faktisk, if we are able to get the finances in shape, is that (whereas) one task is to identify fake news but the other is important to educate how they can identify fake news and misinformation themselves. So I think what we try to do now with programs and schools and students could have been more integrated from the start….but that is of course we did not have those thoughts at all in early times but that has only grown and grown.
 
This is also why I think it is also very difficult to leave [factchecks] behind the paywall…..if we stay behind the paywall we can reach only the audience that we reach anyway and who already reads us. 
 
I also think it is important that we would have focused from start to more finances from philantrophies from the startwhile it could be now more easier…we had some supporters  but we could have avoided the year to year discussions with some funders. 
 
Mikko: 
Music to my ears as education big part of Faktabaari and we have also cooperated a lot with Faktisk on this. Next on relationship with other stakeholders – especially platforms… At least public broadcaster need to help citizens?
Where do you see red lines in co-operating with platforms and in the other hand, where do you see the cooperation with government and government intervention? 
To my understanding Norway has more media subsidies also towards media innovation whereas in Finland we are only gradually getting emergency help? I have tried to keep the door open for collaborative media innovation? 
**What are the red lines for cooperation with platforms and with government? How much cooperation to remain independent?**
 
Gard: **
What it comes to platforms and problems in collaborating with Facebook …the pro is first with fighting misinformation and fake news at scale – and this is what it is all about in reaching  out to the platforms ..,.you need to be there…in Facebook [for more impact]. 
 
The problem [in working with Facebook 3rd party fact-checking] Is that you become part of the algorithm and what you can end up to a situation where you are not only fighting misinformation but you also end up to discussion on free speech…because when we [Faktisk] end up saying Facebook this it is not right or correct when Facebook will hide the content from their audience…and then we have the discussion… is that up to us is that our role…we should make people aware that this is wrong (inaccurate) but that is the question of red line – should you stop it or should you just make people aware of that this is not correct?…and this is the problem when you become part of algorhitm and your content is distributed…and this is the question…
 
What it comes to cooperate with government …that is a really good questions…in Norway we have this system where editors are both protected from their owners and their audience and the media companies in Norway respect their editors freedom….so what I think is really important is that when we started Faktisk we could have ended up to a situation where I and Helje and Dagbladet editors would have been all part of Faktisk….
 
If we would have done that…we would not have succeeded…the key is that the Editor of Faktisk is independent like me and Helje and all editors in Norway as this protects as from the government….so to get subsidies from NGO and foundations and government but you really need to have strong editor and that person need to be independent from the  owners…so you need to be professional owners…in my opinion…
** **
Mikko:
Ok, the [Faktisk] statutes seem to be very strong as in Finland some tend to be very flexible whereas some fight for their independence till the end…but Fact-checking is a public service and in Norway you have the distribution system [for fact-checks] that is just amazing and almost comparable to social networks and you do not need to boost [fact-checks] them…

Mikko to Einar:
Did Schibsted play a role in building Faktisk.no?

Einar: 
As far as I know this was solely on editors in chiefs and they decided on this and I have not heard any support from the Schibsted group [in the beginning]. It had nothing to do with the group [of Editors] as such. That is quite important – independent editors should decide themselves.

But on Government and public…. I think it should be asked if we should be more active seeking public financing to Faktisk. Because in principle there is nothing different from government financing public service as long as there is independent editor [to Faktisk]. In that case I see no problem to raise that question in Norway and this is something Gard and I should discuss afterwards as it is something to consider.

Another issue on redlines to social networks…I think that [question on cooperation with social networks] is a difficult one because if the traditional newsrooms should take all the pollution away from social networks they would not do anything else. That would be their major task and that would not bring any new critical journalism but just one huge fact-checking operations of all independent newsrooms…that would not be interesting and not practical in any way, why I believe we need to engage – as we do -  in regulating social networks especially in regards illegal [social media] content and maybe we will come back to that.

In principle, what is illegal in the analog world should also be illegal in digital world and social networks are much more than telecom companies – while they [social networks] are as a rule excused on [content liability]. And that is where we are all engaged in and sceptical to French initiatives where they try to regulate what they call disinformation and harmful content….because what is really disinformation?  What is really harmful content? It is hard to in precisely regulate on it [disinformation] in law …and that could really be a threat to freedom of speech. So, you need to be much more precise [in defining] and why we think that the legal versus illegal -discussion is much more safe than the code of practice [on online disinformation] - discussion that is taking place.

Mikko:
Thanks. I want to also congratulate Schibsted to be active in Brussels and on it’s report on how to ensure democracy and free speech online (LINK).


Free to be quoted as long as the source and context mentioned.
**More information: mikko.salo(at)iki.fi & **www.faktisk.no/om-oss