Methodology

1) Every 30 minutes we crawl hundreds of outlets, respecting robots.txt. 2) We group articles telling the same story. 3) We compare who reports it, which figures each gives and when, what most report and some omit, and the loaded words each outlet uses. We only compare figures about the same fact: the headline figure counts, and two figures more than three times apart are different facts unless both are attributed ("according to…"). 4) We extract only explicit numeric claims about official indicators and compare them with the Eurostat, INE or World Bank series for the period the sentence cites. To find more, an AI reads sentences with figures and proposes indicator, territory and period; our rules check that the sentence and figure are in the text and that territory and period fit, or it is not judged. The verdict is always given by code against the official data, never by the AI. 5) Verdicts: True (up to 0.2 points or 3%), Imprecise (up to 0.6 points or 10%), False (more), Misleading (claimed trend contradicts the data) and Not enough data. We never judge with data older than 400 days. Every verdict links its source. Same rules for every outlet.

True Imprecise Falso Misleading Not enough data

Advertising plays no part in the method: it does not change verdicts, checked claims or the order of the news, and it is chosen only from the page content, with no cookies or profiles. Advertising on nosmienten.com.