Fact checking is probably best done by a third party of the user's choosing. It's rare that a statement cannot be reasonbly argued from multiple angles. We simply have to pick the sources we trust and picking them for us is probably not the best solution.
I understand the desire to prevent fake stories, but probably much better to tie credibility to individuals so there's more at stake for them personally.
I take your point and, while there's some subjectivity there, that may well be an example of fact-checking done in bad faith.
I'm just not sure that it is happening at scale though. But I do agree that, to the extent that it is happening, it is particularly egregious when done under the guise of fact-checking versus, say, your standard tilted article.
It's true, there are fundamental problems with the concept of "fact-checking".
Often the "fact" is just the majority consent, as e.g., demonstrated by the banning of the Wuhan lab leak theory prior to it becoming mainstream.
But more broadly, there is a stark imbalance between the resources of the fact-checker (a few minutes or hours to decide) and the author who (e.g. in this case) conducted a month-long, in-depth investigation.
The same is true for the author who can be highly specialized in a given topic and the fact-checker who necessarily has to check a wide range of content.
Given that, "fact-checking" necessarily has to be overly broad and erring on the side of censorship.
If that's what they're doing their must be a reference article the "fact checking" article is pointing to.
Why? Facts about a particular story are often reproduced by many sites. It's reasonable to run a check on those facts without specifically targeting a site. Snopes (which they use as an example) does this regularly.
I think you're trying to draw too fine a line. Fact-checking is definitionally part of the editorial process. In publications that don't have separate fact-checking departments, it would literally be part of the editor's job description.
> As any one who’s read snopes or fact check, while the fact checks often point out actually incorrect information, some of the time, they reframe the question/narrative, assume an inaccurate scope or apply semantics in a convenient way and label something that isn’t necessarily false as not false that reflects the bias of the author.
Do you have an example of this, on Snopes or another fact checking website?
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.
That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
I haven't provided any information at all. I provided some opinions. If you're actually a fact checker, that would seem to behavior that plays directly into the critiques of such work. However, I suspect this remark is just a play on the "they are stubborn, i am persistent" trope, in which case I don't see the relevance at this point in this sub-thread.
>Don't they do peer reviews before publishing articles to the eyes of millions ?
No.
The closest journalism gets to peer review is fact-checking. I know of no newspaper or website that does formal fact-checking; the only times I recall being formally factchecked were when I've written for monthlies like Playboy, Wired magazine, etc. Here's a famous example of where fact-checking would have been useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass#The_New_Republic_...
At other news organizations there is, in theory, informal fact-checking. I've done that as an editor and reporter, and I've had that done to me by my editors and, more frequently, by the good folks working on copy desks. This is not necessarily a rigorous process, but it can flag more obvious problems, hyperlinks to the wrong web pages, information stated as fact that is no longer accurate, etc.
As <jonnathanson> points out nearby, some of these built-in safeguards have been eroded by the journalism crunch. Others have been removed by the perceived need to increase publishing speed. I know of one news organization that had 3-4 humans involved in reviewing a story circa 2002 before it could be published on the web. By 2010-2012, however, reporters were clicking the "publish" button in the CMS themselves for almost all stories -- and then sending a request to the copy desk for an edit after the story was live.
[Disclosure: I worked as a technology journalist, albeit one with a technical background, before leaving CNET/CBS last year to found http://recent.io/]
Entire fact-checking thing is just the media under disguise, so click-baity articles are to be expected. They often try to present their claims as if the subject they write about is entirely false, even when it isn't. Moreover, it's not only that they are not qualified to write on most topics they write about: all fact-checking studios act under guidelines of IFCN, the "International Fact-Checking Network", so it doesn't matter whether cases like these happen on Facebook or Twitter, they are governed by the same entity that is likely to pursue its own political interests and bias.
Actively "fact checking" a story that criticizes oneself sounds like a deep misunderstanding of conflicts of interest.
reply