A Q and A with Lucas Graves Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

Fact-checkers and the flood of social media misinformation: A Q&A with Lucas Graves

Not so many years ago, fact-checking went hand-in-hand with elections reporting and political journalism. With the rise of social media, though, fact-checkers have spent more time debunking online misinformation, viral memes and other hoax content.

That shift has raised an important question: Has online misinformation reduced the amount of attention to elections fact-checking and the fact-checking of government?

Professor Lucas Graves of the University of Wisconsin attempted to answer that question in his latest paper ([link removed]) , “From Public Reason to Public Health,” written with colleagues Valérie Bélair-Gagnon and Rebekah Larsen.

Graves had a recent conversation with Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, about his findings and the implications for the fact-checking community.

Lucas Graves speaks with fact-checkers at GlobalFact 10 in Seoul, South Korea. (Poynter)

Among Graves’ comments:

On when the switch happened: “The shift (from politics fact-checking to debunking) has been unmistakable to anyone who follows fact-checking, but it's tricky to document because we don't have perfect data. I think the most striking evidence comes from Thomas van Damme's brilliant master’s thesis analyzing five years of worldwide ClaimReview data, which shows the spike beginning 2017 and 2018, with debunking shooting up to about two-thirds of global output in 2020.”

On fact-checkers and the social media platforms: “Fact-checkers have a very nuanced view of these partnerships. Nobody is under any illusions about what motivates globe-spanning tech firms to work with them, and as a rule fact-checkers want more transparency about what the algorithms are doing with their work and what the long-term impacts are. But fact-checkers from very different parts of the world all mentioned how rewarding it is to debunk some hoax and know that it has an immediate, concrete effect in making that post less visible.”

On the growth of the fact-checking community: “Growing pains are inevitable, and the disagreements get sharper as the stakes get higher. That's interesting and important, because that's where the different visions for what fact-checking can be come out. But nobody is doing this work for selfish reasons, and everyone I speak to seems to recognize that where views differ, those are good-faith differences about the best path forward. I'm very curious to see how the regional networks develop, and how the role of the IFCN evolves along with them."

Read more of Grave’s thoughts on fact-checking and the full conversation ([link removed]) .
Fact-checkers and AI

Several IFCN signatories recently have reported on and written about artificial intelligence.

The Mongolian Fact-Checking Center published a recent report ([link removed]) seeking to raise awareness of AI-created misinformation. “Especially for Mongolia, there are no third-party fact-checkers working in Mongolian on platforms other than Meta's Facebook and Instagram, so it is common for fake information to go unchecked and uncorrected, and many Internet users end up with untrue information. During election periods and political conflicts, political parties and groups' public information activities are activated, and AI applications can intensify this. … There are free tools like huggingface.io ([link removed]) , Hive Moderation ([link removed]) , and AI or Not ([link removed]) to check fake photos or AI-generated content, but there are cases where these can't keep up with the ever-increasing advances in AI.”
Vishvas News of India launched a video series ([link removed]) hosted by Devika Mehta to promote AI literacy. The series reviewed how fact-checkers debunk fabricated content and looked at common misconceptions about AI, such as “AI is a black box” or “AI is not biased.” (It can be understood and changed, and it includes biases from its training data.)



** Reviews of AI tools
------------------------------------------------------------
Testing AI tools side by side ([link removed]) was the topic of a recent New York Times story. Reporters tested five AI-detection tools: Umm-maybe ([link removed]) , Illuminarty ([link removed]) , AI or Not ([link removed]) , Hive ([link removed]) and Sensity ([link removed]) . No single tool navigated the tests with 100% success; the report tested more than 100 real photos and synthetic
media. Another report looked at the growth of companies ([link removed]) hoping to provide AI-detection tools.
Research watch

How to increase the demand for fact-checking was the subject of a recent paper ([link removed]) from Matthew H. Graham of Temple University and Ethan Porter of George Washington University. After reviewing the effectiveness of fact-checking in mitigating the effects of misinformation, the U.S.-based study tested three successful interventions: appeals to civic duty, social pressure and micro-payments. It also examined the partisan reputation of fact-checkers and how it affected willingness to read fact-checks.

A team of researchers across Europe led by Kirsty Park in Ireland and Stefan Mündges in Germany conducted an independent audit ([link removed]) of how tech platforms and social media companies responded to information requests from the European Union. (The companies included Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and Twitter/X.) The overall quality of reporting was less than adequate, the report said. More than half of the measures were incomplete or missing qualitative information, and companies frequently included information unrelated to the specific measure in question. Answers to questions about “empowering research” were particularly poor, the researchers said. Finally, “the inescapable conclusion of this document is that Elon Musk’s Twitter failed every single indicator and gave every impression of blatant non-compliance,” wrote Stephan Lewandowsky in the report’s forward.
News about fact-checking

At the recent Africa Facts Summit in Mauritius, journalists James Okong'o and Mary Kulundu of AFP Fact Check won first place in the professional fact-checkers category. Their report ([link removed]) documented how police in Kenya misidentified protesters on social media in an attempt to quell criticism of their March 2023 handling of demonstrations. Kemi Busari of Dubawa was runner-up with his report ([link removed]) on harmful herbal remedies that lax regulation in Nigeria allowed to thrive. Africa Check of South Africa organized the summit and awards gala. (See more winners ([link removed]) .) Ann Ngengere of Fathm highlighted five key takeaways ([link removed]) from the conference about AI, coordinated
campaigns, climate change, harmful misinformation and media literacy.
Fact-checkers in India are declining to participate in a fact-checking program that would give a local government some say in the fact-checking process, according to a report ([link removed]) in the Hindustan Times. “There is a lot of confusion around the process. At the end of the day, we rigorously follow the IFCN’s code of principles because we are active in seven countries... Fact-checkers cannot be working for the state,” said Rahul Namboori, co-founder of Fact Crescendo. IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan told the Times, “No IFCN signatory could agree to such a plan and still meet the code’s principles.”
First Check, fact-checkers in India who specialize in health fact-checking, reported ([link removed]) that one of their physician sources has been targeted for defaming traditional medicine. “Legally, truth is the strongest defense against defamation. In Dr Philips’ case, only time will tell whether the truth will prevail. Next hearing by the court is scheduled on January 5, 2024,” FirstCheck reported.
Pagella Politica and Facta.news of Italy have launched "A Fuoco ([link removed]) " (On Fire), a newsletter on Substack about climate change and disinformation. Recent topics have included eco-anxiety, the hidden environmental costs of energy transition, and what data shows about natural climate cycles.
Kemi Busari of Dubawa interviewed IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan recently about challenges and opportunities for the international fact-checking community and the IFCN. They discussed ([link removed]) the growth of fact-checking in Africa; elections fact-checking; governments regulating fact-checkers; how to handle gendered misinformation, and more.
News about platforms

Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, wrote a guest essay for the New York Times ([link removed]) about fact-checking Donald Trump on Twitter and the resulting backlash against fact-checking and content moderation online. “These attacks on internet safety and security come at a moment when the stakes for democracy could not be higher,” Roth wrote. “More than 40 major elections are scheduled to take place in 2024, including in the United States, the European Union, India, Ghana and Mexico. These democracies will most likely face the same risks of
government-backed disinformation campaigns and online incitement of violence that have plagued social media for years. We should be worried about what happens next.” Roth was a keynote speaker at GlobalFact 10 in Seoul, South Korea.
The Israel-Hamas War has demonstrated how much X, formerly Twitter, has deteriorated as a real-time news source, writes Casey Newton of The Platformer. Owner Elon Musk’s changes to the platform have created “a system designed to cause chaos in the information environment, and it is working by design,” Newton writes ([link removed]) . Meanwhile, Threads is growing in popularity, at least in the places where it is available. “While Threads is admittedly smaller than X, perhaps making it a less attractive target for trolls, it’s also likely that Meta’s investments in trust and safety are paying off here. Extending free verification to journalists, showing headlines on article links, and rooting out networks of state-backed troll farms makes for a much better reading experience than the alternative.”
Keep social media safe! (The game)

Are you smarter than the teams that run trust and safety for social media platforms? A new game allows you to put your skills to the test as you run the trust and safety division for an imaginary social media platform called Yapper.
“You have to set policies, deal with various dilemmas, face internal and external pressures, weigh tradeoffs, determine resource allocation and more, all while trying to keep your website from descending into a cesspit of hate, driving away users and advertisers,” the game’s developers report. The game was created in association with the Atlantic Council and is intended to raise awareness about the complexity and trade-offs of online safety.
Learn more and play the game Trust & Safety Tycoon! ([link removed])

This concludes this installment of Factually, brought to you by the following IFCN team members. See you next time!
Angie
Angie Drobnic Holan
Director, International Fact-Checking Network

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2023
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .