Fact-checking needs a reboot - ‘Informing democracy’ is not enough in an age of rampant lies about elections and public health and climate. Fact-checkers need to be more assertive in getting truthful information to the audience that needs it.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Fact-checking needs a reboot

Archive

“‘Informing democracy’ is not enough in an age of rampant lies about elections and public health and climate. Fact-checkers need to be more assertive in getting truthful information to the audience that needs it.”

Fact-checking is failing.

The old way of publishing fact-checks — putting them on websites and promoting them through social media — isn’t getting them to the people who need them. It’s time to reimagine how fact-checkers publish and broadcast their work.

For two decades, fact-checking organizations relied on a dependable model: They published articles on websites. They also tried a variety of other ways to spread the facts — tweets and TikToks and podcasts and even TV segments. But for the most part, the main way they published their work was on the web.

It worked — sort of. Fact-checking became a Thing, foundations kicked in money, and some politicians (um, mostly Democrats) became more cautious about what they said and did.

But now, 20 years later, there are big gaps. A study of 2022 coverage by my colleagues in the Duke Reporters’ Lab found there are still giant “fact deserts” with little or no political fact-checking. Half the states had no fact-checking organization and, in those that did, the odds of a politician being checked were tiny. State legislators (there are more than 7,000 in the United States) were checked only 77 times.

Another problem is that fact-checks aren’t reaching the people who need them the most. Although this hasn’t been studied as directly as the location of fact-checkers, it’s pretty clear from the research that Republicans distrust political fact-checking.

In the coming year, I predict (okay, I hope) that fact-checkers will reassess their goals and reimagine how they publish their work. It’s time to get rid of our old approach and 2024, an election year, is an ideal time.

After I founded PolitiFact in 2007, I often said that our goal wasn’t to change people’s minds or get politicians to stop lying — it was simply to inform democracy. In the last few years, I’ve changed my mind. “Informing democracy” is not enough in an age of rampant lies about elections and public health and climate. Fact-checkers need to be more assertive in getting truthful information to the audience that needs it.

In 2024, they will dream up new ways of getting the facts to the people who need them. Fact-checkers will be bold and think more like marketers trying to push content rather than publishers waiting for the audience to come to a website. They will experiment with new forms that target the people who are misinformed and push the content directly to them.

Another way they will innovate: They’ll get tech companies and social media platforms to expand the use of fact-checking data to suppress misinformation. My Duke team helped develop ClaimReview, a tagging system used by most of the world’s fact-checkers. Tech companies such as Google use it to identify fact-checks and highlight them in search results and news summaries. But this is just a start. ClaimReview and MediaReview, a sibling tagging system for fact-checks of videos and images, can be used more widely to suppress inaccurate content.

I’m also encouraged about the big infusion of money and energy that will come from Press Forward, the ambitious new venture to fund local journalism. The early signs indicate it will be built around regional partnerships, which bodes well for an expansion of fact-checking. I expect the local leaders will make fact-checking a key component of their funding.

I’m not embarrassed to say fact-checking needs a reboot. It’s had a great run for the past two decades, but it’s time for a fresh approach. I’m hopeful it will get one in 2024.


Bill Adair is founder of PolitiFact and the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy at Duke University.
 
Donut Operator, a former cop turned youtuber, has an entire playlist dedicated to making fun of retarded SovCits trying to argue their way out of traffic tickets.

Every one of them has a Wikipedia link about the Sovereign Citizen movement. The algorithm thinks the videos are promoting sovcits, rather than mocking them.

The Establishment is so terrified of people being exposed to thoughtcrime that they now believe they have to "fact-check" obvious jokes, satire, mockery, and shitposting.

This is not the behavior of a regime confident in its own credibility or legitimacy; If anything, it shows they know they are full of shit.

Alas, none of this should be surprising. Despots hate being mocked and having their delusions of godhood and imagined right to unlimited power questioned and poo-poohed.
Ditto anytime anyone says the word "COVID" - even if its something as simple as a museum tour where the narrator says "we were going to have this open in 2020, but then COVID happened" and BAM! there's the unremovable link to Wikipedia so we all know that anti-vaxx sentiment is baseless conspiracy.

As infuriating as it is, I also take heart that this is not the behavior of a group competent enough to ever manage to set up their dream dictatorship.. They'll make a lot of people miserable for quite a while, but, I don't fear a person who wants to censor me, but then out of aversion to actual work and fear of having to actually come in contact with me entrusts a computer program to do it and then never bothers to check if what it's flagging is legit or if its actually working on me.....

As they go to bed every night, I know they can't rest soundly because they still fear what I might do.... while I know exactly what they WILL do in response, and that they'll fail at it while making themselves look foolish and weak, so I sleep soundly, while they have nightmares.
 
Last edited:
I expect a lot of it will be either via bots, official links underneath sites like YouTube. I could see them putting a tag on certain twitter accounts as “misinformation spreaders”-that you have to pay your life with to get rid of in legal fees.

Notice, they treat misinformation not as a political object to contest or claim-but as an epidemiological problem.

This of course means clamping down on and repressing sources of “infection”.

Note the insistence that “fact checking hasn’t met the communities were it is most needed”-as if it’s like getting anti malaria infections to Africa.

The article doesn’t come out and say it-but with it citing republicans who think fact checking is a politically biased enterprise-this will presumably be tailored towards conservatives and trump voters, whenever possible.

Curiously, it denies these people agency in terms of accepting or rejecting either such thing-but sees them as a passive vector for “misinformation” to be washed out with “facts”.

Reading the article it also really illustrates how much “fact checking” is now just another industry within the media-journalism complex. More opportunities in states to hire more fact checkers! Untapped markets to need someone putting an “ackshually” asterisk above a politician’s comment or to flag some inane boomer Facebook post.
 
You could be on Youtube or even a forum-and some bot shows up to tell you x thing you're discussing is a conspiracy theory or russian disinfo or something.

I wonder...if part of the goal of that sort of aggressive counter propaganda is simply to make people...give up.
They want to make people feel isolated.

Not directly related to fact-checking, but more so the user experience and demoralization.

I had mostly given up on Reddit, but discovered a splinter subreddit a few months back run by jannies who didn't seem completely trooned out.

It was still frequently brigaded by NPCs from the parent sub that had driven me away in the first place, so I found myself mass blocking anyone I didn't care to interact with.

Within the past couple of weeks, I've discovered and read about an unpublished Block User limit that Reddit doesn't make public or explain thresholds.

So once your account accumulates an unspecified number of Blocked Users, the function simply stops allowing you to add more.

But the whole thing is surreptitious. There's no announcement that a limit has been reached. It still allows you to attempt to use the Block User function as before.

The only thing that happens is that there's no acknowledgement anymore that the user is blocked and you get returned to the previous screen. You only notice that something is wrong in the fact that you can still view the newly Blocked User's profile (when you can't when the function actually works) and can still see their posted comments.
 
I've already seen examples of this-on a right wing youtuber video, there is an unremovable link to Wikipedia's Great Replacement page, declaring it a conspiracy. '

Why anyone would not see this as anything but a form of counter propaganda staggers the mind. But I imagine that's what such a more aggressive form of "fact checking' would look like.

Ditto anytime anyone says the word "COVID" - even if its something as simple as a museum tour where the narrator says "we were going to have this open in 2020, but then COVID happened" and BAM! there's the unremovable link to Wikipedia so we all know that anti-vaxx sentiment is baseless conspiracy.

When I see these kinds of things, I tend to think of that old saying "If you're taking flak, then you must be over the target.". The more they counter-signal, the harder my almonds are activated.
 
The deboonked far right conspiracy theories of yesterday are the established facts and scientific truth best practices of tomorrow.

What is that? Don't ask questions, citizen.
You don't want to appear to deny science, don't you?

Wear your mask
Watch CNN
Be on the right side of HERstory

Leave difficult things like thinking and having an opinion to us. It's for the greater good.

 
I find it funny that lying corrupted journo-fuckwits think I need their help when it comes down to investigating all their bullshit they put out on the order of pedophilic elites. Lol, lmao even.
 
Back
Top Bottom