Fact Checking

Introduction

Everyday we look to sources like the news to help us make decisions. But how do we know if the information presented is accurate? Depending on the type of publication (books, magazines, newspapers, online articles, official reports, etc.), a fact-checker, or team of fact-checkers, may have spent time reviewing the information to verify its accuracy.

Not all publications have a dedicated fact-checker; in fact, more and more publications are spending less time and resources on fact-checking because of the fast pace of news and ease of finding information online. Nevertheless, fact-checking is an important process to ensure readers get information that is accurate and trustworthy.

Fact-Checking and Journalism Ethics

Let's take a closer look at the role fact-checking plays in journalism ethics. One of the leading organizations in the field of journalism is the Society of Professional Journalists, or SPJ. The SPJ Code of Ethics states that journalists should do their best to put forth credible information by taking the following steps:

• Being accountable for the accuracy of their work
• Verifying information before publication
• Using original sources whenever possible

Fact-checking covers all three of these steps because it requires creators to take ownership of their claims and return to the sources closest to the topic in order to verify the evidence used to support their work. Credible organizations are transparent about their reporting processes and ethical guidelines. The National Public Radio (NPR) Ethics Handbook, for example, details the organization’s policies on accuracy, transparency, fairness, and additional factors like impartiality that make their reporting trustworthy. The Accuracy section of the handbook in particular highlights the value placed on truthfulness and the ability to refer back to the original sources of information. We’ll discuss these guidelines later on in the tutorial.https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=688139552

Fact-Checking in Practice

How thoroughly a fact is checked depends on the publication type. For example, an online news publication responsible for publishing several stories a day may have a whole team of fact-checkers performing quick checks on materials under tight deadlines. A feature article with a longer deadline may have one dedicated fact-checker who will spend days or weeks combing through the article and contacting sources to make sure the information is as truthful as possible. As their job title suggests, fact-checkers are responsible for verifying everything that is factual—this includes statistics as well as details like names, titles, years, and prices. Fact-checkers do not verify opinions, jokes, or satire.

For example, a fact-checker working on a fashion magazine piece will need to verify the images of the products, product descriptions, names of the designers, and item prices. If a book review mentions an author’s previous work, a fact-checker will make sure the title and publication date for the referenced work are accurate.

Fact-Checking in Practice: Example

Let’s take a look at this book review. First, the fact-checker would identify the factual information that needs to be verified. Below, you’ll see facts highlighted along with followup questions the fact-checker would use to guide their investigation. Next, the fact-checker would reference credible sources to confirm the accuracy of the facts in the review. The fact-checker would then make any necessary edits in the manuscript.

Fact-Checking in Practice: Example 2

As mentioned in the video, fact checking offers publications a layer of protection against legal action should an individual be misrepresented in a story. In a fast-paced news cycle, misprints or unverified claims can quickly and easily damage an individual’s reputation. Harmful misrepresentation in written form, such as newspaper articles, is called libel. Slander is the spoken form of such misrepresentation. Each can have severe legal implications for the publisher or organization behind the defamatory text or speech. This is why it’s so important that facts like quotes be fact-checked. It’s also critical for a fact-checker to have eyes on the terminology used in a piece. For example, in an article about an ongoing trial, a reporter should take care in describing the accused in order to avoid misrepresenting their innocence or guilt before an official ruling is made.

Original text: This morning jurors gathered to review the case of [Name] for defrauding investors of millions of dollars. Fact-checked text: This morning jurors gathered to review the ongoing case of [Name] for allegedly defrauding investors of millions of dollars.

In this example, the original text leaves room for the unconfirmed conclusion that the individual did in fact defraud investors. Since the investigation is still in progress, a fact-checker would add language to clarify the status of the individual to avoid creating a false implication of guilt.

Traditional Fact-Checking vs. Debunking

So far, we’ve been discussing the traditional form of journalistic fact-checking that occurs before publication. Nowadays, it’s common for debunking to occur after a piece of information is published. As you saw in the video at the beginning of this lesson, debunking focuses on confirming or negating published claims. This type of fact-checking occurs more and more often as misinformation becomes more easily spread. You may be familiar with sites like FactCheck.org or Snopes.com. These are fact-checking sites with the common goal of investigating published claims in order to help readers determine the accuracy of the information. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Snopes.com is an independent, nonpartisan publication run by Snopes Media Group and is funded by advertising on the site. On the following pages, you’ll learn about different types of sources involved in journalism. Being familiar with source types will help you fact-check information before and after publication and critically evaluate the sources used by debunkers to support or refute a claim.

Types of Sources

In journalism, a source is typically a person: someone who provided information or evidence. A primary source is the person with the most direct knowledge about an event, person, or idea. The victim of a crime, for example, is a primary source who can provide a firsthand account of the incident. Keep in mind that primary sources can also refer to materials like government or legal documents that are considered the most authoritative and accurate.

A secondary source is a person or account about a primary source. Written commentary about a crime, or about the people involved, for example, is a secondary source.

These terms are similar to the academic research source types that you may be familiar with. A subject expert is someone who is recognized as knowledgeable about a particular topic. Imagine you are reading a news story about a new illness impacting children. A credible publication would include facts from an authoritative subject expert like a pediatrician who specializes in treating the illness. By contrast, an influencer on social media advertising a cure for the illness despite having no medical training, would not be considered a subject expert for this news story.

Credible publications invest in this extra step, rather than rely on the content of a blog or social media post, which might be exaggerated or misleading, as the best available evidence. As a reader, you can determine whether the journalist or fact-checker went the extra mile by analyzing how the facts and their source are presented. Ask yourself:

• Does the piece provide any information about the fact’s original author and whether they are a reliable source of information?
• How close is the source to the topic? Is the source primary or secondary?
• If primary, is the source a subject expert?
• If secondary, who or what is the primary source the author could have consulted? By not including the primary source, how is the credibility of the article undermined?

Evaluating Sources

Are the facts presented accurately? You can answer this question by seeking out the original source and comparing how the information is presented. Pay particular attention to quotes: have they been selectively trimmed to better align with the article’s claims? Is there enough context in the story for me to understand the fact and its significance? Contextual information is especially important when analyzing social media materials that are intentionally brief like Twitter tweets. In other words, is there enough information provided so the reader can draw reasonable conclusions from the facts presented?

Evaluating Sources: Reliability

How reliable is the source? This means looking for any biases that might make a source less credible. Responsible publications will also let readers know if the author or source has any conflicts of interest that might influence their interpretation of the facts. For example, the owner of a company being interviewed will naturally want to present their company’s impact in the best light. The facts they share might be accurate, but could be missing context or other information that is needed to fully understand the company’s performance.

As with academic research, Wikipedia is not an accepted source for accurate information. While it may be a useful tool to start your fact-checking research, you’ll need to take the time to locate the original sources in order to verify the information.

Evaluating Sources: Balance

Is representation of the topic or issue balanced? Has the author attempted to present multiple points of view to help the reader make an informed decision? Publications that are committed to presenting a balanced picture of an issue will let readers know a critical point of view is missing. You might see phrases in an article like, “we attempted to contact this source for comment, but received no response” or “the source was unwilling to comment” that indicate efforts were made to give a source a chance to weigh in on an issue.

NOTE: Anonymous Sources You may occasionally see information attributed to an anonymous or confidential source. Lack of named sources is controversial in hard news stories since these types of reports rely on the ability to verify the accuracy of information from credible sources. Sources may be anonymous in order to protect the identity of the person supplying the information. However, editors may cut the information if a source cannot be named to avoid legal implications for the publication. Alternatively, a source may be given a pseudonym to protect their identity, but this practice can still be risky for sources like whistleblowers with exclusive knowledge.

Evaluating Sources: Original Sources

To be verifiable, facts must be backed up by at least one credible source. Ideally, the primary source of information. More and more commonly, you’ll see online news sites use their own coverage as a source, rather than a primary source. In this example, we see the hyperlinks refer to coverage of previous events. When we click on a link, it takes us to the publication’s own coverage of the event instead of the original source.

In this example, we can see links about the settlement between the players and FIFA direct readers to The Guardian’s own coverage of the event, rather than to a credible outside source such as a press release from FIFA. Associated Press News’ coverage of an event is often used as a template for other outlets to create a story. As you read widely across different publications, you’ll notice very little is done to alter the text of the original AP news release. Much of The Guardian article in the example above uses whole sections of the AP brief with minimal paraphrasing or without alteration. Keep an eye out for articles that use creative phrasing to make it sound like they had exclusive access to information that was in fact part of speech or a press release.

In this example, the phrase “NASA told Newsweek” introduces an excerpt of a statement by NASA about the International Space Station.

However, this information is attributed by Time to a response to a query made by Space.com, not exclusive communication between NASA and Newsweek.

In the original source, we can see that Space.com presents the quoted statement along with the name of the spokesperson at NASA who provided the information.

Sources Browne, Ed. 2022. “NASA Can Run International Space Station Solo If Russia Pulls Out, Experts Say.” Newsweek, March 3, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-run-iss-solo-russia-pull-out-space-station-cosmonauts-1684600. Gohd, Chelsea. 2022. “New Russia sanctions won't imperil International Space Station operations, NASA says.” Space.com, February 25, 2022. https://www.space.com/russia-ukraine-nasa-response-iss-operations. Kluger, Jeffrey. 2022. “Why Russia (Probably) Won't Crash the Space Station.” Time, February 28, 2022. https://time.com/6152575/russia-ukraine-iss/.

Fact-Checking in Practice

You may be wondering about how tools such as ChatGPT and other generative AI tools relate to fact checking. AI can be an immensely powerful tool assisting with a variety of tasks, from brainstorming ideas to summarizing large amounts of information. Fact checking may seem like a natural task for this technology. Like Wikipedia, AI tools can assist with basic background research. However, AI is not a perfect tool. Just as it can be used to fact check and verify the accuracy of information, it can also be used to produce misinformation. Sometimes this is intentional, when AI is employed by groups interested in disseminating false claims. But even where there isn’t ill intent, AI’s algorithms are imperfect, and the information it produces can be inaccurate, or lacking the full context necessary to truly verify information. Fact-checking and journalistic organizations are working on developing reliable AI tools that can be used for fact-checking, but there is currently no substitute for verifying information from the original source using the tools of fact-checking described in this tutorial. This doesn’t mean you must entirely avoid tools like ChatGPT, but use them with caution (and within the boundaries of your instructor’s policies). Do not automatically assume that the information you receive from AI chatbots is accurate. Think of AI as an assistant you don’t know very well yet. They may be able to help you with your work, but they cannot reliably do it for you. As the technology continues to evolve, and organizations and individuals grow more accustomed to using it, best practices for how AI can be used most effectively and reliably will also continue to evolve. For now, as a fact checking tool, chatbots should always be used in conjunction with additional sources and verification techniques.

Evidence Ratings

You may come across evidence rating systems as part of analyses published by professional fact-checking departments. These ratings more accurately capture the degree to which a fact is accurate in a specific context. Rating scales follow this basic scale:TrueMostly trueMostly falseFalseFabricatedThe Fact Checker by The Washington Post created the Pinocchio test which rates evidence on a scale from one to four Pinocchios, with four being the highest rating for inaccuracy. The Fact Checker also makes use of the “verdict pending” rating for facts that are still being investigated. This rating system helps readers better understand how and why a story is accurate.

Lateral Reading

Like a professional fact-checker, you can use the technique of lateral reading to evaluate the sources you come across. Lateral reading is a research strategy that involves examining a source using multiple outside sources. For example, if you are fact-checking a website cited as a source in an article, you can use lateral reading to critically analyze its reliability as a source. Before you do a deep analysis of the site’s contents, look for an About page to get a sense of the site’s mission. Next, open a new browser tab and see what other sources say about the website and its coverage of important issues. These insights will help you evaluate the reliability of the website and prepare you to take a closer look at the way it presents facts.

Takeaways

Now that you’re familiar with the purpose and process of fact-checking, you’re ready to go out and engage with information published in print and online. As you gather information about causes that are important or of interest to you, keep these tips in mind. Closely examine cited sources. Ask yourself: Is the source a subject expert? Would they have reason to misrepresent an issue? Practice lateral reading. Don’t rely on the publication itself for an unbiased view of their coverage. Seek out other sources that discuss the publication in order to evaluate it thoroughly. Draw on a wide range of sources. Look for several different credible sources that address the topic. How does their coverage differ? Seek a balanced view. You can use Allside’s Media Bias Ratings to get an idea about potential spin/bias in how information is represented. Then, ask yourself: have both sides of an issue been fairly represented? How might a source’s affiliations color their representation of sources of points of view? Go the extra mile to check the details. Sometimes, inaccurate information is republished across different platforms because creators don’t take the time to verify it against a primary source. You may have to go beyond what is readily available online and to the original source to determine whether a fact is accurately represented. Find a credible source, primary if possible.