West Africa and Gaza Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
This month we look at the work of fact-checkers in tough conditions; a defense of the fact-checking community and its growth; a call for fact-checkers to innovate more; a report from Europe’s fact-checkers holding platforms accountable; and a debate going on about the rigor of misinformation studies.
Fact-checkers in West Africa debunk propaganda after coups across the region

The political landscape in West Africa in recent years has been marked by a series of coups that have reshaped governance in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger and Gabon. This trend of political upheaval extends to nearby countries like Sudan and Chad, with visible signs of instability now emerging in Cameroon and Sierra Leone.

Fact-checkers in the region have stepped in to develop their own strategies and techniques for fact-checking during a coup.
A striking case involved a video on X, formerly Twitter, claiming to show a Nigerien minister in tears after being summoned by coup leaders regarding national finances. This video, which quickly went viral and was shared by prominent figures across West Africa and beyond, was later debunked ([link removed]) by Africa Check, an IFCN signatory. It actually dates back to early 2021 and depicts a different Nigerien minister.
(Africa Check)

As unsubstantiated claims surrounding the coup in Niger began spreading beyond its borders, Congo Check, an IFCN signatory from DRC, was one of the fact-checking organizations that stepped in. In mid-August 2023, they showed ([link removed]) that a widely circulated Facebook claim that Cote d’Ivoire was preparing to attack Niger using helicopters was actually based on an outdated image.
More African fact-checkers are now intensifying their efforts to tackle disinformation during coups, a shift from their traditional focus on elections and conflicts.
Elias Meseret of Ethiopia Check reported this story; read the longer version ([link removed]) at Poynter.org.
New York Times profiles fact-checkers in Gaza and Israel
Fact-checkers working in Israel and Gaza were recently profiled by the New York Times in a story that mentioned the International Fact-Checking Network and the Arab Fact-Checking Network.

The story outlined ([link removed]) the challenges of fact-checking in the region and mentioned both the International Fact-Checking Network's Angie Drobnic Holan and the Arab Fact-Checking Network's Saja Mortada.
The story notes:

Many Israeli and Palestinian fact checkers entered the field within the past few years. They have done valuable work, sometimes without pay, in recent months trying to ferret out the facts from a combat zone, Ms. Holan said. Their proximity to the conflict makes them deeply invested in the truth, and better equipped to understand the cultural nuances that shape it.

It also exposes them to accusations of bias. Neutrality can be difficult in a region where political and religious differences have been hotly contested for generations, and even more so during an intensely polarizing war.
Peter Cunliffe-Jones and Lucas Graves respond to ‘downbeat’ article on fact-checking trend

Last fall, the New York Times wrote a report about fact-checkers’ frustration with the tireless fight against misinformation. (If you saw the story ([link removed]) , you’ll remember the cool photo of Tai Nalon of Aos Fatos in Brazil.) The report suggested that fact-checking isn’t the growing sector it once was.
Wait a minute, said Peter Cunliffe-Jones and Lucas Graves. Peter founded Africa Check, while Lucas has studied fact-checking since before the founding of the International Fact-Checking Network.
The outlook isn’t so grim, they argued in a report first published in The Conversation ([link removed]) . Many fact-checkers are growing in size and sophistication. Research studies show that fact checks have an observable impact on correcting false factual beliefs. And fact-checking has a documented preventive function of deterring false statements in the first place.
“The picture, in summary, is more complex than was suggested, and in many, if not all, parts of the world, more hopeful too,” concluded Peter and Lucas.
Looking back at 2023, looking forward to 2024

Spain’s EFE Verifica looked back at the year in news ([link removed]) and found the Israel-Hamas war drove a wave of misinformation around the world. On the positive side, it found that predictions of a surge of misinformation created by artificial intelligence largely failed to appear.
If the war between Israel and Hamas has been local, the resulting disinformation has been global, said Ramón Salaverría, coordinator of Iberifier, a disinformation observatory for Spain and Portugal.
According to data collected by the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) , the war in Gaza generated the most disinformation since April 2022, when the invasion of Ukraine accounted for almost half of the false content detected, EFE Verifica reported. The story also quotes Tommaso Canetta of EDMO and Italy-based fact-checker Pagella Politica, and the IFCN. Read the story ([link removed]) .
In the United States, PolitiFact founder and Duke University professor Bill Adair made a prediction for Nieman Lab’s year-end round up of predictions on the media for 2024.
Under the provocative headline, “Fact-checking needs a reboot ([link removed]) ,” Bill argued that fact-checkers need to reimagine how they publish and broadcast their work.
“In 2024, they will dream up new ways of getting the facts to the people who need them,” Bill wrote. “Fact-checkers will be bold and think more like marketers trying to push content rather than publishers waiting for the audience to come to a website. They will experiment with new forms that target the people who are misinformed and push the content directly to them.”
In the “Weekend Essay ([link removed]) ” of the Financial Times, Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins looked back at the rise of misinformation on X, formerly Twitter, and found that the platform blurred the boundaries between journalism and content created for profit.
“If digital platforms such as X continue to prioritize commercial imperatives over authentic information dissemination, what becomes of our global discourse? The challenges aren’t merely about individual platform decisions but a broader ethos governing the digital information ecosystem,” he argued.
But government regulation is not the answer, he argued. Instead, he advocated for education and media literacy efforts: “Such initiatives hold promise for several reasons. First, they seek to address the roots of the issue — the societal and psychological factors that draw people to misinformation and conspiracy theories. By imparting skills and fostering a culture of inquiry, we can help to inoculate future generations against the allure of falsehoods.”
News about platforms

European fact-checkers give platforms poor reviews on disinformation action
European fact-checkers recently reviewed whether the major tech platforms are taking action on disinformation, and the reviews are not good. The report by the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (ECFSN) looked at whether large platforms are keeping commitments they made through the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation.
The report looked at tech platforms YouTube, Google, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Bing, Linked In, X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
From the report’s executive summary:
* X ranks worst in a survey of European fact-checkers as not a single fact-checking organization considers the company to take disinformation seriously.
* Telegram is a critical actor in the dissemination of disinformation in the EU and more attention should be devoted to its public components.
* YouTube lists as partners “EU based fact-checking organizations” that are in Myanmar, Indonesia, or Brazil.

Read the full report ([link removed]) with critical feedback for every platform.

And if you want to track European internet regulation more closely, subscribe to Disinfo Policy Updates ([link removed]) , the newsletter of Spain-based fact-checker Maldita. That’s where we first read about the new report.

Finally, in a separate report ([link removed]) , the New York Times documented how X under the ownership of Elon Musk has largely dismantled the flagging of false content and even actively promotes hoax content on the site.
News about GlobalFact

Planning starts for GlobalFact 11 in Sarajevo
GlobalFact 11 is set for June 26-28, 2024, in Sarajevo and planning teams are working behind the scenes to get ready. Expect a new live page for the conference to debut by mid-February with details on registration and information for fact-checkers on travel assistance and visas.
To get the latest updates fast, make sure you subscribe to the IFCN’s public listserv ([link removed]) . We’ll also recap the latest conference news in each edition of Factually.
The planning team includes the IFCN staff with input from our advisory board; the fact-checkers with Zašto ne based in Sarajevo; and fact-checkers from Brazil who will be hosting GlobalFact 12 in 2025 in Rio de Janeiro. Soon we will be querying fact-checkers that are signatories to the IFCN Code of Principles for additional planning input on speakers, panels and workshops.
Research watch

Is misleading content the same thing as misinformation?
The academic debate over the scientific basis of misinformation studies continues. Philosophy professor Dan Williams argued in his Substack ([link removed]) that there can’t be a science of misleading content, because — unlike demonstrably false content — the concept of misleading content is amorphous, value-laden and widespread. All communication, he writes, “involves countless decisions about what information and context to include, what to exclude, how to present information, which narratives and explanatory frameworks to embed the information in, and so on. Any attempt to divide this communication into a misleading bucket and a non-misleading bucket will inevitably be biased by pre-existing beliefs, interests, and allegiances.”
Other researchers counter-argued ([link removed]) that the field of misinformation studies is broader than only quantitative work measuring exposure and susceptibility, and that it has roots in social psychology, political communication, sociology and infrastructure studies. Writing for the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, researchers noted ([link removed]) the important implications of misinformation studies for issues of government: “​​Political actors across the world have become adept at using social media to consolidate authoritarian gains … When these campaigns are spearheaded or encouraged by political elites, the consequences can be especially dire, justifying targeted political violence.”
Relatedly, researchers Stephan Lewandowsky, Sander Van Der Linden and Andy Norman argued in Scientific American ([link removed]) that the roots of misinformations studies are solid and go back to the ancient Greeks and their studies of misleading rhetoric. “The people who oppose misinformation research, whether pundits, politicians or crackpots, are not fighting for freedom but against a discerning and well-informed citizenry,” they concluded.
Quick take
IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan was profiled ([link removed]) recently by Shondaland, a storytelling platform created by Shonda Rhimes, a major creative presence for U.S. television shows. The piece showcased the work of the IFCN and included Angie as a “warrior on the front lines of the war against misinformation.
(Shondaland)

Thanks for reading this edition of Factually! See you next time.
Angie


Angie Drobnic Holan
IFCN director

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 2024
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]) .