Every reader should know exactly where our information comes from and how we verify it before publication. This page explains the sourcing standards we apply day to day, how you can challenge our reporting if something seems wrong, and what a typical fact-checking process looks like in practice. We welcome scrutiny and treat every correction request seriously.
What we rely on day to day
Our journalists build every story on primary sources, official documents, direct interviews, and publicly verifiable data. We do not publish speculation or unattributed claims without a named human source willing to stand behind them.
For political and economic coverage, our team at Medienconnect draws on parliamentary records from the Riksdag, government press releases, Statistics Sweden, the Riksbank, and major Swedish research institutes. When we cite a report or study, we link to the original document or provide a clear identifier. For court cases, we use official judgments from Swedish courts and, where possible, direct testimony from participants. We also maintain direct contact with press officers at government ministries, political parties, and regulatory bodies.
Our fact-checking team, led by Julia Franke, cross-references every statistic, date, and direct quotation against at least two independent sources before approval. We keep detailed records of our sourcing for each article, which we can share upon request. If a source wishes to remain anonymous, we require approval from the Chefredaktör, Alexander Seidel, and we explain the reason for anonymity in the article itself.
For cultural and societal stories, we rely on interviews with named individuals, archival materials, and direct observation. We never fabricate quotes or invent sources. Our full methodology for verification is set out in our fact‑checking policy.
How to challenge our reporting
If you believe we have made a factual error, misrepresented a source, or omitted important context, you have a clear route to raise your concern and expect a swift, transparent response.
Start by sending an email to our corrections team at corrections@medienconnect.de or use the complaints form linked on our complaints procedure page. Please include the article URL, the specific error you believe exists, and any evidence you can provide (a screenshot, a link to a contradictory source, a document). Our fact‑checking editor, Julia Franke, reviews every complaint within two working days and coordinates with the relevant reporter and section editor.
If the claim is upheld, we issue a correction notice at the top of the article, clearly stating what was wrong and what has been corrected. We also log every correction in our corrections register, which you can access via our corrections policy page. If we disagree with your complaint, we explain our reasoning in writing. Should you remain unsatisfied, you can escalate to Alexander Seidel, who oversees all editorial standards and publication decisions. For more serious concerns that cannot be resolved internally, we cooperate with the Swedish Press Council (Pressens Opinionsnämnd), though we are an independent international publisher not formally bound by Swedish media law—we voluntarily adhere to its principles.
We also encourage readers to suggest sources, share leads, or tip us about stories we might otherwise miss. Our tip‑us page explains how to securely contact our newsdesk.
How this works in practice
To make these standards concrete, consider a recent article on changes to Sweden’s parental leave benefit. Our Politikredaktör, Daniel Hoffmann, began by reading the government bill on the Riksdag’s official website. He then interviewed the responsible minister and a social policy researcher from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, recording both conversations. The Wirtschaftreporter, Sandra Schmitt, checked the financial impact figures against the latest budget proposal from the Ministry of Finance. The draft was reviewed by Laura Busch, the Redaktionschef, and then passed to Julia Franke’s fact‑checking team, who verified that all three data points—the new replacement rate, the number of affected families, and the implementation date—matched the original bill and the agency’s press release. Only after that approval was the article scheduled for publication. Every step was documented, and the final article included direct links to the government bill and the agency’s data. This process applies to every story, from a short news brief to a long‑form investigation.
In short
We hold ourselves to the same sourcing standards we demand of the institutions we cover. If you see something that breaks those standards, tell us—we will investigate openly and correct what needs fixing.