Katana VentraIP

Fact-checking

Fact-checking is the process of verifying the factual accuracy of questioned reporting and statements. Fact-checking can be conducted before or after the text or content is published or otherwise disseminated. Internal fact-checking is such checking done in-house by the publisher to prevent inaccurate content from being published; when the text is analyzed by a third party, the process is called external fact-checking.[1]

"Factcheck" redirects here. For other uses, see Factcheck (disambiguation).

Research suggests that fact-checking can indeed correct perceptions among citizens,[2] as well as discourage politicians from spreading false or misleading claims.[3][4] However, corrections may decay over time or be overwhelmed by cues from elites who promote less accurate claims.[4] Political fact-checking is sometimes criticized as being opinion journalism.[5][6] A review of US politics fact-checkers shows a mixed result of whether fact-checking is an effective way to reduce misconceptions, and whether the method is reliable.[7]

History of fact-checking[edit]

Sensationalist newspapers in the 1850s and later led to a gradual need for a more factual media. Colin Dickey has described the subsequent evolution of fact-checking.[8] Key elements were the establishment of Associated Press in the 1850s (short factual material needed), Ralph Pulitzer of the New York World (his Bureau of Accuracy and Fair Play, 1912), Henry Luce and Time magazine (original working title: Facts), and the famous fact-checking department of The New Yorker. More recently, the mainstream media has come under severe economic threat from online startups. In addition, the rapid spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories via social media is slowly creeping into mainstream media. One solution is for more media staff to be assigned a fact-checking role, as for example The Washington Post. Independent fact-checking organisations have also become prominent, such as PolitiFact.

Types of fact-checking[edit]

Ante hoc fact-checking aims to identify errors so that the text can be corrected before dissemination, or perhaps rejected. Post hoc fact-checking is most often followed by a written report of inaccuracies, sometimes with a visual metric provided by the checking organization (e.g., Pinocchios from The Washington Post Fact Checker, or TRUTH-O-METER ratings from PolitiFact). Several organizations are devoted to post hoc fact-checking: examples include FactCheck.org and PolitiFact in the US, and Full Fact in the UK.


External post hoc fact-checking organizations first arose in the US in the early 2000s,[1] and the concept grew in relevance and spread to various other countries during the 2010s.[9]

limiting detailed descriptions of / or arguments in favor of the misinformation;

walking through the reasons why a piece of misinformation is false rather than just labelling it false;

presenting new and credible information which allows readers to update their knowledge of events and understand why they developed an inaccurate understanding in the first place;

using video, as videos appear to be more effective than text at increasing attention and reducing confusion, making videos more effective at correcting misperception than text.

Sarah Harrison Smith, who headed the fact-checking department for , wrote The Fact Checker's Bible.

The New York Times

Jim Fingal worked for several years as a fact-checker at and McSweeney's and co-authored with John D'Agata The Lifespan of a Fact ,which is an inside look at the struggle between fact-checker (Fingal) and author (D'Agata) over an essay that pushed the limits of the acceptable "artistic license" for a non-fiction work.

The Believer

Cherry picking

Confirmation bias

- Improving the formatting, style and accuracy of text

Copy editing

Firehose of falsehood

Journalism

Investigative journalism

Media literacy

Metascience

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Soprano, Michael; Roitero, Kevin (May 2024). . Information Processing & Management. 61 (3, 103672). doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672.

"Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review"

Nyhan, Brendan. 2020. "". Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34 (3): 220–36. doi:10.1257/jep.34.3.220

Facts and Myths about Misperceptions

"Rapidly expanding fact-checking movement faces growing pains"

Kiernan, Louise. (Dec. 29, 2017). ProPublica.

"Calculating the Work Behind Our Work"

\Amazeen, Michelle (3 June 2015). . The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 July 2015.

"Sometimes political fact-checking works. Sometimes it doesn't. Here's what can make the difference"

Davis, Katy (22 October 2012). (Press release). The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), George Mason University. Archived from the original on 9 March 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)

"Study: Fact-Checkers Disagree on Who Lies Most"

The New York Times Magazine

"About Regret the Error | Poynter"

Heffernan, Virginia (2010) , The New York Times Magazine (online), 20 August 2010 (print edition, 22 August 2010, p. MM14). Accessed 27 July 2015.

"The Medium: What 'fact-checking' means online"

Silverman, Craig (23 October 2007). Regret the Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech. Penguin Canada.  9780143186991.

ISBN

by the Poynter Institute

Fact-Checking research and news

Miller, Ielleen. . Eastern Washington University.

"Research Guides: Journalism: Fact-Checking Sites"