Fact-checking is crucial in journalism, ensuring the accuracy of news and countering misinformation. Originating in the 1930s, it initially involved verifying reports internally before publication, a role often carried out by fact-checking departments.
By Thoudam Vilip Singh
Fact-checking is a fundamental concept in journalism, central to its goal of providing accurate accounts of recent events. It is also a part of scientific research in reviewing the works of fellow scholars. First introduced in the 1930s, the term originally described a specific role in the news production process, where specialists verified the details of a report before publication. This “internal” fact-checking, often done by fact-checking departments, remains a key part of professional journalism. Beyond this occupational role, fact-checking also refers to the broader process of verification, which is integral to every journalist’s work. In this sense, it involves gathering information from multiple, sometimes conflicting sources, and ensuring the final report is trustworthy. Any failure to properly verify details before publication, such as during a breaking news event, can be considered a fact-checking error. In recent years, fact-checking has taken on another meaning, representing a public effort to combat misinformation. This “external” form of fact-checking focuses on evaluating the accuracy of claims that have already been circulated, particularly in politics and online discourse. Fact-checking organizations and websites, which have emerged over the past two decades, specialize in debunking falsehoods spread by public figures or across digital platforms. This type of fact-checking has become an important tool in addressing the spread of misinformation in today’s media landscape, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence.
While these forms of fact-checking differ, practitioners often blur the lines between them. This ambiguity can have significant cultural implications for journalism, as it shapes public expectations and trust in the media. Fact-checking, in its various forms, remains an essential part of journalism’s commitment to accuracy and objectivity, particularly in the age of misinformation.
Internal fact-checking
Internal fact-checking is a key component of journalistic practices, ensuring the accuracy of news before publication. While editorial norms differ across media outlets and national journalism traditions, factual accuracy is fundamental to journalism as a profession. Journalists are expected to verify information thoroughly and correct errors promptly, with codes of ethics around the world emphasizing these responsibilities.
The practice of fact-checking emerged during the Progressive Era as a distinct editorial operation. Specialized fact-checking departments first appeared in U.S. magazines like Time and The New Yorker in the 1920s, signaling a professional commitment to accuracy. These departments played a key role in differentiating magazines from newspapers, allowing them to compete by offering trustworthy and comprehensive content. Initially, the role of fact-checker was often filled by young women, reflecting gendered norms of the time. By the 1980s, major U.S. newsweeklies employed one fact-checker for every three or four correspondents, solidifying the practice as standard in the magazine industry. Although fact-checking has largely remained invisible to the public, it has drawn attention during high-profile controversies, such as the exposure of fabricated stories by New Republic writer Stephen Glass in the mid-1990s. A small body of professional literature has explored the dynamics between writers and fact-checkers, noting the blurred line between reporting facts and verifying them. Fact-checkers have often been tasked with conducting original research to fill gaps in stories.
Daily newspapers, by contrast, have rarely employed dedicated fact-checking staff due to the demands of producing news under tight deadlines. Instead, newspapers have relied on copy editors, who juggle multiple responsibilities. The problem of verifying facts, however, remains central to journalistic discourse. In recent years, the shift to digital media has posed new challenges to internal fact-checking processes. As newsroom resources shrink and deadlines tighten, editors and authors now often handle fact-checking themselves, and online stories may receive less scrutiny than their print counterparts.
The digital age has also raised questions about how to verify online rumors or citizen reports during breaking news events. This shift has led to notable reporting errors, such as those seen during the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. As a result, fact-checking is increasingly viewed as a “norm of compromise” in an environment where news outlets no longer serve as the sole gatekeepers of public discourse.
External fact-checking
External or “political” fact-checking is an increasingly common practice in journalism that involves evaluating the accuracy of public claims, rather than verifying information prior to publication. Unlike internal fact-checking, which ensures the accuracy of news before it is published, external fact-checking publicly challenges or endorses the truthfulness of statements made by individuals or organizations. This form of fact-checking often entails confrontation, as fact-checkers evaluate statements from politicians, journalists, or public figures, with the goal of combating misinformation and influencing public discourse.
The goal of external fact-checking is to prevent the spread of false information by persuading readers not to believe inaccurate claims or encouraging public figures to speak more truthfully. While rooted in traditional journalism, this form of fact-checking has evolved into a specialized role, particularly as digital platforms have expanded. The rise of fact-checking outlets, especially those dedicated to evaluating political claims, has grown significantly in the 21st century.
Fact-checking groups from around the world have also come together annually since 2014 to discuss their work, leading to the establishment of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) in 2015. The IFCN, based at the nonprofit Poynter Institute, serves as an umbrella organization for fact-checkers globally, promoting best practices and standards in the field. External fact-checking continues to grow in importance as a tool to fight misinformation. Its rapid expansion reflects a broader societal demand for accuracy and accountability in public discourse, especially as misinformation has become more prevalent with the rise of digital media and social networks. As fact-checking organizations refine their methods and standards, their role in shaping political debate and public perception will likely continue to evolve. The work of these outlets not only informs the public but also holds those in power accountable for the accuracy of their statements, making it an essential part of modern journalism.
Methods of Checking
Fact-checkers face challenges in reliably and consistently assessing the accuracy of public political claims due to the complexities involved in interpreting evidence and selecting authoritative sources. The nature of political discourse, often rooted in framing and interpretation, raises questions about whether these issues can be treated as straightforward matters of fact. This complexity makes fact-checkers vulnerable to accusations of bias and error.
Independent fact-checking organizations generally follow a similar approach to investigating public claims. Common steps in their methodologies include investigating claims across the political spectrum, focusing on factual statements rather than opinions, relying on data from recognized and independent sources such as official or academic institutions, and ensuring transparency in their evidence and analysis. The goal is to create a process by which any observer can understand how the fact-checker reached a verdict, reflecting a broadly scientific approach to verification.
Fact-checkers frequently come under fire from political figures and the public, particularly during highly polarized debates. For example, Brazilian fact-checking organizations faced significant backlash during the 2018 elections. Academic researchers have also raised concerns about the reliability of fact-checking, questioning whether different fact-checkers reach consistent conclusions when assessing the same claim. Studies have yielded mixed results, with scholars sometimes disagreeing on how to harmonize different rating systems and on the reliability of fact-checking methodologies.
Some academic critics argue that fact-checkers rely on unscientific methods and exhibit a “naive epistemology,” treating matters of interpretation as factual questions. Others defend fact-checkers, emphasizing the rigor and transparency of their methods.
In response to the growing challenge of misinformation, efforts to develop automated fact-checking systems have emerged. Fact-checking organizations have collaborated with artificial intelligence researchers to create tools that can help detect and verify claims on a larger scale. These technologies can flag repeated false claims or commonly cited statistics, streamlining the verification process. Key players in these developments include Argentina’s Chequeado, the U.K.’s Full Fact, and the Duke Reporter’s Lab in the United States. These innovations represent a promising frontier in the fight against online misinformation, allowing fact-checking to operate more efficiently in the digital age. FactCheck.org, International Fact-Checking Network – Poynter, PolitiFact, StopFake.org, and The Washington Post Fact Checker are also worth mentioning. In India, we have fact check portal in Press Information Bureau, Government of India (https://factcheck.pib.gov.in/), Press Trust of India (https://www.ptinews.com/fact-check), etc.
Conclusion
Despite the growth of fact-checking initiatives, their real-world impact is limited by their reach. Many independent fact-checking sites struggle with visibility, often relying on outside coverage to amplify their findings. Even in countries where these efforts are well-established, fact-checkers generally maintain a small presence in daily news cycles. Studies indicate that misinformation spreads more rapidly than corrections, further diminishing the potential benefits of fact-checking. Therefore, while fact-checking holds promise in mitigating misinformation, its effectiveness is constrained by various factors, including audience engagement and media dynamics.
(Dr. Thoudam Vilip Singh is studied Theoretical Physics [Ph.D.] at NIT Manipur. He did his B.Sc.(H) from Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi and studied Physics M.Sc. at NIT Manipur)
References and Further Readings
- Uscinski, J.E. and Butler, R.W., 2013. The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), pp.162-180.
- Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M. and Vlachos, A., 2022. A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10, pp.178-206.
- Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R.L. and Morag, Y., 2020. Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political communication, 37(3), pp.350-375.
- Graves, L. and Amazeen, M., 2019. Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism.
- Cook, J. and Lewandowsky, S., 2012. The debunking handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland.
- Jackson, B. and Jamieson, K.H., 2007. unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
- Shapiro, I., Brin, C., Bédard-Brûlé, I. and Mychajlowycz, K., 2013. Verification as a strategic ritual: How journalists retrospectively describe processes for ensuring accuracy. Journalism Practice, 7(6), pp.657-673.
- Allen, J., Arechar, A.A., Pennycook, G. and Rand, D.G., 2021. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. Science advances, 7(36), p.eabf4393.
- Dias, N. and Sippitt, A., 2020. Researching fact checking: Present limitations and future opportunities. The Political Quarterly, 91(3), pp.605-613.