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.
 
claiming it's about the difference between facts and opinions.
there's no objective difference between fact and opinion

those little "fact vs opinion" lessons our teachers put on in elementary school to get kids to stop arguing about which digimon is better were lessons in emotional maturity, not in philosophy or morality
they weren't meant to be turned into the basis for one's mindset in adulthood!

1704103163058.png
 
It’s an election year which means all the fun things we saw in 2016 and 2020 will be amplified even further for 2024. Buckle up, this is going to be an interesting ride this year.
 
They're so mad that the proles are not only ignoring their propaganda, but that X (formerly Twitter) is now allowing proles to fact check them.

It's like that scene from Robin Hood: Men In Tights. 'I lost? I'm not supposed to lose! Let me see the script!' Except it's not near as funny.
 
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
It amazes me how people still support democracy when the main proponents of democracy talk like comic book villains.

Also is there any way to get this article in front of Musk? I know he's a faggot at times but good lord, this is the kind of shit he got pissed about and bought twatter over.
 
Jesse Singal posted a response: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/why-would-i-possibly-trust-bill-adair (Archive)

Nieman Lab recently ran a roundup of year-end predictions for 2024, and Bill Adair argued in one of them that “Fact-checking needs a reboot.” Adair, his bioline at the end of the article notes, “is founder of PolitiFact and the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy at Duke University.”

The first sentence argues that “Fact-checking is failing.” Adair continues: “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.”

You can read the article if you want to get his full argument. He makes some perfectly fair points about how, for example, state legislators are subjected to very little of the fact-checking that sometimes covers higher-profile politicians.

But I’d like to focus on one part that really jumped out at me:

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 suspect that by “in the last few years,” Adair means something like “since Donald Trump was elected.” After all, countless journalists have decided since then that they need to be a little bit more “assertive” about what they do — that they cannot merely “inform democracy.”

As I’ve argued before, from a certain perspective it all sounds well and good — until you dig down into the specifics, into how journalists actually execute on their new supposed imperative. In this case, it’s telling that a journalism professor would speak this breezily about “suppress[ing] misinformation” without any critical inquiry into what that might mean.

This article fits neatly into a recent obsession, in some liberal circles, with the idea that the United States can fact-check its way out of various social ills and political crises. This has brought with it some fairly ominous-seeming ideas about what a “fact” is and who gets to “check” it. In this case, Adair offers no hint as to how we should determine what crosses so far into “misinformation” that it should be suppressed. Not “corrected,” not “contextualized via a note from an editor” — suppressed!

Even though he doesn’t say so, it stands to reason that as anti-misinformation technology improves (or “improves”) and more misinformation (or “misinformation”) is suppressed, it’ll be the Bills Adair of the world and their PolitiFacts that get to determine what is sufficiently untrue as to warrant suppression. This raises an obvious question: How have they done so far?

One relatively easy way to evaluate the quality of fact-checking organizations is to judge their past performance. Specifically, their past performance on the most politicized, incendiary cases. If a fact-checking organization can keep a steady eye on its principles even in these instances, that’s a good sign that it is functioning well and can be trusted.

I continue to think that the chaos that unfolded in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020 was a vitally important test case for mainstream American journalism. To review: first, Jacob Blake was shot seven times by Kenosha police officer Rusten Sheskey on August 23, sparking both peaceful protests and rioting. In the chaos that ensued, Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from a nearby town in Illinois who styled himself a guardian of the increasingly dangerous streets, shot three individuals, two fatally, late in the day on August 25.

Despite all the outrage over Sheskey’s and Rittenhouse’s actions, the available evidence suggests that Sheskey’s use of potentially lethal force against Blake on August 23 was almost certainly justified, legally speaking, and that Rittenhouse almost certainly acted in self-defense (also legally speaking) as well, since the men he shot were pursuing him. Therefore, the Kenosha County District Attorney was correct when he announced he wouldn’t pursue any legal charges against Sheskey in early 2021; the Department of Justice was correct when it announced it wouldn’t pursue federal charges nine months after that; and later, a jury was correct to acquit Rittenhouse on charges that included intentional homicide.

I’m not going to rehash these cases in detail here, but to be honest I don’t think either of them is much of a close call, and I’ve written and said plenty about both for readers who are curious to know more: here’s what I wrote about the Rittenhouse case in the early days of that controversy; here’s an episode of Blocked and Reported Katie Herzog and I dedicated to carefully going through the Jacob Blake case; here’s a piece I wrote for Persuasion about how the not-guilty verdict shouldn’t have surprised anyone following the Rittenhouse case closely (and how badly journalists screwed it up); and here’s an episode of Honestly in which I discussed the verdict with Bari Weiss.

Why would I choose these particular events as a quality-control test for journalists and their outlets? Partly because it’s convenient for me — I know a fair amount about the events in question. But beyond that, these events constitute fairly clean means of assessing journalistic competence because 1) they were ultra-polarizing, meaning that during the heady days of 2020 and 2021 there was tremendous pressure for partisan actors and institutions to express the “correct” opinions about them (and there still is, to a lesser extent); 2) we have a lot of useful video about what actually happened in both instances; and 3) Blake’s shooting sparked two investigations (both the DA’s and an independent one by Noble Wray, a law enforcement veteran and former Barack Obama police-reform appointee, which the DA relied on in part to make its decision), while Rittenhouse’s led to a court case, and both of these processes produced yet more evidence.

In other words, journalists had (and have) a great number of social and political reasons to get Kenosha wrong, but few excuses to do so when it comes to the available evidence, which is not in short supply. It’s a low bar to clear and professional journalists should have been able to hurdle it from the start.

PolitiFact has basically failed this test.
 
You’ve shown your true colors when even fact-checkers have to be fact-checked by regular people. So much of it was happening during the 2016 election and Trump’s presidency, from calling metaphors “lies” to taking statements that “need context” or were said with the wrong “mindset” and calling them lies and half-truths.

I mean, I will never forget this gem in fact-checking.

1704125787319.png

1704126245496.jpeg

1704126293184.jpeg

1704126431606.png

1704126526131.png
 
Last edited:
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.
Fucking hell, it blows my mind how the average human reads this and can't make the logical leap of "well shit, what if they use it against me?!" even if he can't bring himself to care about others. Inaccurate? Who defines it? Fact? What's fact, that chopping your dick off and ruining your physical and mental well-being is okay to sate a fetish?
 
Fact checkers are great because when I see them scrambling to DEBOOOONK something I just assume it's true
 
They're so mad that the proles are not only ignoring their propaganda, but that X (formerly Twitter) is now allowing proles to fact check them.

It's like that scene from Robin Hood: Men In Tights. 'I lost? I'm not supposed to lose! Let me see the script!' Except it's not near as funny.
Even more telling is how they're angry at the new Blue Checks.

It's now functioning as it was ostensibly supposed to in the first place: "this account is run by the person they say they are." Instead, in practice, it was treated as a Goodthinker Badge until Musk bought it.

That makes them hopping angry to no end.

And to think it was all because they couldn't handle the Babylon Bee calling Richard/"Rachel" Levine "Man of the Year." They lost their propaganda organ for lack of reproductive organs.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Thankfully people aren't quite as stupid as urinalists believe they are. Oh, people are still stupid, just not the totally oblivious mongoloids that journos think. There was a recent poll or study that found a rather large number of Canadians believe there is a conspiracy to replace White Canucks with immigrants. People can see what's going on, and they're not falling for the propaganda as readily as they once were. More and more people are having their eyes opened, and TPTB and their media stooges are terrified. But, as I said earlier, the only thing they can think to do is keep doubling down on the same narratives, because they're incapable of admitting blame or that they are wrong.
 
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.
 
The only things journalists and fact checkers need is a shovel and a plot of land that needs irrigation ditches dug in it. Manual labor is the cure for the ailments of the mind and spirit they suffer from.
 
Back
Top Bottom