Verification and Fact-Checking

Verification and fact-checking are both essential and effective methods of media intervention that aim to investigate the truthfulness of information. But while often used interchangeably in daily life, the two methods have some distinct differences. Verification involves seeking out corroborating evidence that would provide greater confidence that something is in fact true. This could involve many different sources and tools, including records, testimonies, articles, etc. Fact-checking is more of a personal or institutional goal, achieved through the process of verification.

As an analogy, imagine the process of eating and self-nourishment: even if you feel hungry, you don’t have to consume anything. But almost all of us want to, because we value self-nourishment – we wish to be alive and healthy. Eating, then, is a process by which we can meet the value of self-nourishment. So too for verification and fact-checking. Presented with a piece of information, an individual or organization doesn’t have to check it. But (at least theoretically) individuals, and especially certain organizations, value fact-checking – they wish to know and present what is true and not present or absorb what is false. Verification, then, is a process by which the value of fact-checking can be met.

Section 1.1: History

The idea of fact-checking gained prominence in New York in the 1920s. Time magazine expressed the need for an editorial team that could check materials for accuracy and objectivity before publication (Fabry, 2017). The task of the fact-checker was to identify verifiable claims and then either confirm or refute them. Since reliability is arguably one of the most valuable aspects of a journalistic organization’s success, it’s not surprise that fact-checking departments quickly appeared in many newsrooms. Eventually, fact-checking became recognized as a necessity to good journalism.

Fact-checking became both more difficult and more necessary with the expansion and proliferation of technology, especially the internet. Launched in 2003, Factcheck.org was the first major online fact-checking site and initially focused on the accuracy of statements from major political figures. Politifact followed not too long after, in 2007, evaluating political claims on a “truth-meter.” What followed was a boom in independent (as opposed to internal) fact-checking organizations, including Snopes, AFP Fact check, AP Fact check and others (Kessler, 2014). While political fact-checking is still often a focus of these groups, they’ve expanded to include verification of information across various fields and sources. In recent years, some social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok have partnered with fact-checking organizations to help combat disinformation (although it should be acknowledged that social media fact-checking is still an area of contention and controversy).

Section 1.2: Two Types of Fact-Checking

Fact-checking is typically divided into two main types: ante hoc fact-checking and post hoc fact-checking.

Ante hoc fact-checking happens before a piece of information is published or disseminated, usually with the goal of correcting or rejecting the information. On an organizational level, unpublished information is typically kept exclusively within the organization before being shared, meaning ante hoc fact-checking is effectively a type of self-policing on the part of an organization. Conversely, post hoc fact-checking happens after information has already been published, often as a list of inaccuracies. This is the type of fact-checking external agencies, such as Politifact and Snopes, practice.

The drawback of ante hoc fact-checking might be obvious to you: it relies on the internal principles of an organization, and not all organizations are equal moral or rigorous in their principles. However, if an organization has a good reputation for their ante hoc fact-checking (by consistently surviving post hoc fact-checking), then this has the very strong advantage of preventing misinformation from being spread in the first place. Which leads to the greatest disadvantage of post hoc fact-checking: if misinformation is present, it has already been published and disseminated. The major advantage, though, is its equality of access. Theoretically, anyone can fact-check information once it’s public.

For example, you can practice post hoc fact-checking by questioning a social media post that’s shared with you, and you can practice ad hoc fact-checking by verifying information in a post you make before you share it.

Section 1.3: Verification Tools

In its broadest sense, a verification tool is simply anything that aids in the process of verification. On the most basic level, verification tools can be things like talking to eye-witnesses, going to a library or institution to view original source material, or checking public records. The tools used will often vary based on the type of information being checked. How you verify an assertion in a written statement might be different from how you verify the truthfulness of a photograph, for instance.

Although the rise of the internet and social media created more complicated forms of misinformation, it also allowed for more detailed verification tools. Reverse image searching (inVid, Google Lens), content metadata analysis (metadata2go, ExifPurge, FotoForensics), and social media activity monitoring (Hashatit, Who posted what?, Email checker, Botometer, Hoaxy) are all tools that are now available to help verify not only the source but the context of information.

Section 1.4: Fact-Checking Code of Principles

In 2015, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) was launched and developed a code of principles to help guide the ethics of fact-checking organizations:

• A commitment to non-partisanship and fairness
  • Are you checking all sides?
• A commitment to standards and transparency of sources
  • Where is your information coming from?
• A commitment to transparency of funding and organization
  • Who runs the project and how is it supported?
• A commitment to standards and transparency of methodology
  • What is your fact-checking process?
• A commitment to an open and honest corrections policy
  • Are fact-checkers checking and correcting themselves?

Section 1.5: Limitations and Challenges of Fact-checking

Although fact-checking offers numerous benefits, it’s not without its issues. Firstly, personal bias can influence the process of fact-checking. Fact-checkers, after all, are still people, and their beliefs and preferences may impact their ability to analyze and verify information. Although ethical fact-checking is meant to be nonpartisan, it still suffers from the increasing political polarization in this country. Fact-checking agencies are often viewed as arms of a specific political party or ideology, which can then lead to a loss of trust between the audience and the media. As it turns out, fact-checking agencies (and the very idea of fact-checking) are no less susceptible to being targets of misinformation.

On a practical level, fact-checking can often be time-consuming and expensive. The former is especially hindering in an age when information can spread faster than it can be reasonably checked, and the latter leaves truth in the unfortunate position of being a budgetary concern. Additionally, some information and concepts can have high degrees of complexity, making fact-checking much more difficult.

Many of these challenges have potential solutions, though. Personal bias can be helped by hiring a diverse range of people to be fact-checkers, and having multiple people attempt to verify information (although this admittedly makes fact-checking more costly). Complex information can be fact-checked with nuance, especially by communicating the results in terms of a variance or spectrum, as opposed to a binary ruling of “all false” or “all true.” Lastly, individuals, as consumers of media, can demand that the media institutions we support prioritize fact-checking. Truth will likely become a budgetary priority if consumers stop giving revenue in its absence.

Fact-checking is an essential aspect of media literacy and an important critical thinking tool. When journalists and organizations engage in fact-checking and correcting inaccuracies, it creates an environment of credibility, strengthening the bond between the media and the audience. Providing verified and accurate information helps people make informed decisions and form a more realistic worldview – a major stated aim of journalism. Fact-checking also promotes a culture of accountability for the dissemination of information. When people know that their claims will be verified, they may be more cautious and more likely to provide accurate and verified information. With vigilance on the part of both media organizations and their audience, fact-checking can remain a vital and supported tool for preventing and combating misinformation.