Are fact-checking sites making any impact? This research says yes (sometimes).
The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe Published November 2016
A new report by Lucas Graves and Federica Cherubini surveys fact-checking sites in Europe - “a landscape which is remarkably diverse and fast-changing.” The survey raises questions about the role of fact-checking sites as a democratic institution: what counts as reliable data? Who has the authority to assess public truth? And how is accuracy balanced with other democratic principles such as openness and pluralism?
The survey found that fact-checkers have significantly different missions and identities.
Three-quarters of fact-checkers see themselves as journalists, but only 40% accept the label of “activist” or “policy expert”. Even fewer would use the label “academics” or “technologists”.
One-third believe the most important goal is to inform citizens, while 23% believe it’s about holding politicians to account.
A small group (10%) see themselves as reformers, pushing for policy change.
It also found that in Western Europe fact-checking is more frequently based in newsrooms, while it is usually NGO-based in Eastern Europe. This variation in structure, identity and mission can result in slightly different methodologies and approaches.
Most interesting is the survey’s findings on impact. As concerns grow about the dawn of a ‘post-fact’ or ‘post-truth’ age, what can realistically be achieved by holding public figures to account for their false statements?
Political impacts:
“Politicians generally ignore fact-checkers”. Cases in which a politician abandoned a false claim or acknowledged the error publicly are rare.
“Public figures seem to word their arguments with slightly more care once fact-checking becomes established”.
On rare occasions a fact-check can influence public discourse if one politician uses it against the other.
Use of media to increase impact:
Half of fact-checking sites relied heavily on the news media to increase the reach and impact of their fact-checking.
“Several fact-checkers complained that their work is sensationalised or misrepresented by journalists”, or they are not fully credited for the material.
To maintain some control over their “media footprint,” most sites enter into media partnerships. However, these partnerships can be vulnerable to political pressure, particularly if it is public media.