Email
Inside IFCN’s defense of fact-checking: What we told major media about Meta’s fact-checking retreat
| From | International Fact-Checking Network <[email protected]> |
| Subject | Inside IFCN’s defense of fact-checking: What we told major media about Meta’s fact-checking retreat |
| Date | January 30, 2025 2:00 PM |
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
Angie Drobnic Holan on Meta’s fact-checking exit and what’s at stake
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends Donald Trump’s inauguration last week. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool)
Since Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement that Meta would shut down its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program in the U.S., the IFCN has worked to offer insight into the work of fact-checkers; what the end of the nine-year partnership means for the battle against falsehoods; and why fact-checkers everywhere merit continued support.
On Monday, director Angie Drobnic Holan criticized Meta’s plan to replace professional fact-checkers with a Community Notes-style model similar to that used on X. Speaking on the Poynter Report Podcast ([link removed]) , she warned that the approach is unlikely to counter demonstrably false posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
“One of the things about community notes is that it depends on people of varying political views having agreement on the usefulness of the notes,” she said. “In a highly polarized time, that agreement doesn’t necessarily happen.”
On X, the platform owned and controlled by Elon Musk, less than 9% ([link removed]) of proposed notes end up being shown to the public, and only a small fraction of those address harmful political and health misinformation.
“A lot of claims that are demonstrably false don’t end up getting tagged with notes,” Holan told veteran media writer Tom Jones, the podcast host. “And if Meta follows this path without strong standards of evidence, misinformation will only flourish.”
Earlier, fact-checking leaders refuted persistent claims that fact-checkers involved in the nine-year partnership censored content on Facebook. “Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracies,” Holan said in a statement, which was reported by The New York Times ([link removed]) , Forbes ([link removed]) , Reuters ([link removed]) , Nieman Lab at Harvard ([link removed]) , The Wall Street Journal
([link removed]) and others.
Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute, voiced the concerns shared by many fact-checkers in an article by WIRED ([link removed]) : “Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It's time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking.”
Holan added, “It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters… Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”
Calling Zuckerberg’s remarks in the announcement video as “incredibly unfair,” Holan told The Verge ([link removed]) that Meta’s billions of users will be the first to feel the impact of the company’s decision. “It’s going to hurt Meta’s users first because the program worked well at reducing the virality of hoax content and conspiracy theories.”
“In the long term,” she told the Associated Press ([link removed]) separately, “I think it’s very uncertain what this will all mean.”
Days after Zuckerberg went public with the news — a move some U.S. fact-checkers described as not entirely unexpected — more than 130 organizations from 78 countries, all signatories to the IFCN’s Code of Principles, wrote an open letter ([link removed]) to counter his claims of censorship and set the record straight. The letter, republished by dozens of organizations, warned that ending the program would be a setback for online accuracy and could lead to real-world harm, particularly in countries vulnerable to political instability and violence. The first open letter to Zuckerberg ([link removed]) in 2016 led to the creation of the fact-checking program.
Holan and Dulamkhorloo Baatar, founder of NEST Mongolia spoke ([link removed]) to the international community of the Society for Professional Journalists about the challenges of fact-checking around the world. Holan said that while she hopes Meta executives will eventually change their minds and resume the program in the long term, she expects fact-checkers to withstand the challenges posed by reduced funding for their work.
“On a brighter note, the fact-checking community is resilient,” Holan said on The Poynter Report Podcast ([link removed]) . “We need to think about history and how we want to be remembered. Day to day, it can look very bleak, but I do think if you are pursuing truth, you’re going to end up on the right side of history. That’s what helps me get out of bed every morning.”
More coverage on Meta
* SEE Check ([link removed]) : Tijana Cvjetićanin examines how politicians, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists in Southeast Europe are responding to Meta’s termination of its U.S. fact-checking program and the loosening of content moderation, highlighting potential threats to regional media integrity.
* Reuters Institute ([link removed]) : Gretel Kahn reports that global fact-checkers in Brazil, Croatia, Italy, Nigeria, Ukraine, and the Philippines fear Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program will negatively impact their revenue and disrupt their news ecosystems amid ongoing war, attacks, and political turmoil.
* The Hill ([link removed]) : MIT’s David Rand and Cameron Martel argue that Meta’s decision to replace professional fact-checkers with community-based content moderation is out of step with public opinion. Their research shows most Americans, including the majority of Republicans, support platforms reducing harmful misinformation and using independent fact-checkers over relying solely on user-generated systems like community notes.
* Tech Policy Press ([link removed]) : Paul M. Barrett defends fact-checking against claims that it censors free speech, is biased, and ineffective, asserting its essential role remains crucial even as Meta discontinues its third-party fact-checking program.
* Axios ([link removed]) : Sara Fischer reports that Google has informed EU officials it will not integrate fact-checks into its search results or YouTube videos, nor use them for content ranking or removal, despite new EU regulations requiring such measures.
* Rest of World ([link removed]) : Ananya Bhattacharya highlights that fact-checking organizations in Pakistan, Argentina, and Brazil had already begun diversifying their revenue streams in anticipation of Meta ending its program, suggesting these groups may better withstand the impact of the withdrawal.
* New York Times ([link removed]) : Mike Isaac, Sheera Frenkel, and Kate Conger report on “Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era,” detailing how Zuckerberg ended the fact-checking program and relaxed content moderation policies after meeting with President Donald Trump. The decision, driven by the promotion of Republican ally Joel Kaplan to head global public policy, has caused internal division within Meta, with employees split over concerns about increased misinformation and the company’s alignment with Republican political interests.
* Prospect ([link removed]) : Alan Rusbridger and Khaled Mansour, members of Meta’s oversight board, write Zuckerberg’s decision follows his alignment with Trump. They express concerns about the rise of misinformation and the challenges of maintaining consistent global content standards.
* Le Monde ([link removed]) : Fabrice Fries, CEO of AFP, writes that Meta’s decision to stop fact-checking during times of massive disinformation is like dismantling the Los Angeles fire station during a major wildfire.
* Rappler ([link removed]) : In her speech at the Vatican’s Jubilee Year celebration ([link removed]) , Nobel laureate Maria Ressa emphasized the importance of fact-checking and criticized Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to end the program.
IFCN awards $2 million in ENGAGE grants to drive innovation in global fact-checking
The grants support fact-checking innovation and audience engagement worldwide.
IFCN awards $2 million in ENGAGE grants to drive innovation in global fact-checking
The International Fact-Checking Network has awarded $2 million in ENGAGE grants to 20 fact-checking organizations across 15 countries. Each recipient will receive up to $100,000 to implement innovative projects aimed at combating misinformation and deepening audience engagement. These initiatives will be implemented over the next year in Africa, Asia, Europe, India, Australia and North America.
The ENGAGE grants are part of the Global Fact Check Fund, launched in 2023 to equip fact-checkers with resources to scale operations, build sustainable revenue streams and tackle misinformation more effectively.
This year’s recipients include projects that use AI to enhance access to public data in India, develop a labeling service for the Bluesky platform and run workshops to help urban communities in Indonesia address AI-generated misinformation. Grant recipients will share their findings with the global fact-checking community to inspire and guide future efforts.
The full announcement ([link removed]) provides detailed descriptions of all selected projects.
Quick Hits
• The Week ([link removed]) : Puja Awasthi reports on THIP winning the ‘Best Health Literacy Platform’ award at Atal Samman Samaroh 2024. THIP, an IFCN signatory, fact-checks health-related claims in six languages and offers tools like the RAKSHA chatbot to combat health misinformation.
• CORRECTIV reporters Alexej Hock, Max Bernhard, Till Eckert, and Sarah Thust uncovered ([link removed]) 'Storm-1516,' a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Germany’s snap elections. The operation deployed about 100 fake websites, using deepfakes and fabricated news to discredit German politicians. Linked to Russian intelligence and pro-Russian influencers, the campaign builds on tactics used in prior U.S. election interference to sway public opinion and destabilize political discourse in Germany.
• Africa Check ([link removed]) : Fact-checking interns Muktar Balogun, Denzel Amobi, and Precious Ewuji report on their experiences in Meta’s third-party fact-checking program in 2024. The project, a partnership with IFCN-certified fact-checkers, involved verifying health misinformation, scams, deepfakes and hoaxes across platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads and WhatsApp. The interns share eight key lessons learned from their work.
•
The Washington Post ([link removed]) : Will Oremus and Naomi Nix report that NewsGuard, a company that rates the credibility of news sites, is being targeted by GOP efforts to halt its operations. Republican figures, including Brendan Carr, accuse NewsGuard of bias and of forming a “censorship cartel,” while the company defends its nonpartisan criteria.
• LatamChequea ([link removed]) : The network of Latin American fact-checkers criticized Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program in the U.S. They argued that fact-checking empowers users with verified information rather than censoring content, refuting Mark Zuckerberg’s claims of bias. The network warned that this move could aid disinformation actors and weaken efforts to address harmful falsehoods.
Have ideas or suggestions for the next issue of Factually? Email us at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Angie Drobnic Holan
Director, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Enock Nyariki
Communications Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
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 2025
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]) .
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
Angie Drobnic Holan on Meta’s fact-checking exit and what’s at stake
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends Donald Trump’s inauguration last week. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool)
Since Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement that Meta would shut down its Third-Party Fact-Checking Program in the U.S., the IFCN has worked to offer insight into the work of fact-checkers; what the end of the nine-year partnership means for the battle against falsehoods; and why fact-checkers everywhere merit continued support.
On Monday, director Angie Drobnic Holan criticized Meta’s plan to replace professional fact-checkers with a Community Notes-style model similar to that used on X. Speaking on the Poynter Report Podcast ([link removed]) , she warned that the approach is unlikely to counter demonstrably false posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
“One of the things about community notes is that it depends on people of varying political views having agreement on the usefulness of the notes,” she said. “In a highly polarized time, that agreement doesn’t necessarily happen.”
On X, the platform owned and controlled by Elon Musk, less than 9% ([link removed]) of proposed notes end up being shown to the public, and only a small fraction of those address harmful political and health misinformation.
“A lot of claims that are demonstrably false don’t end up getting tagged with notes,” Holan told veteran media writer Tom Jones, the podcast host. “And if Meta follows this path without strong standards of evidence, misinformation will only flourish.”
Earlier, fact-checking leaders refuted persistent claims that fact-checkers involved in the nine-year partnership censored content on Facebook. “Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracies,” Holan said in a statement, which was reported by The New York Times ([link removed]) , Forbes ([link removed]) , Reuters ([link removed]) , Nieman Lab at Harvard ([link removed]) , The Wall Street Journal
([link removed]) and others.
Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute, voiced the concerns shared by many fact-checkers in an article by WIRED ([link removed]) : “Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It's time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking.”
Holan added, “It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters… Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”
Calling Zuckerberg’s remarks in the announcement video as “incredibly unfair,” Holan told The Verge ([link removed]) that Meta’s billions of users will be the first to feel the impact of the company’s decision. “It’s going to hurt Meta’s users first because the program worked well at reducing the virality of hoax content and conspiracy theories.”
“In the long term,” she told the Associated Press ([link removed]) separately, “I think it’s very uncertain what this will all mean.”
Days after Zuckerberg went public with the news — a move some U.S. fact-checkers described as not entirely unexpected — more than 130 organizations from 78 countries, all signatories to the IFCN’s Code of Principles, wrote an open letter ([link removed]) to counter his claims of censorship and set the record straight. The letter, republished by dozens of organizations, warned that ending the program would be a setback for online accuracy and could lead to real-world harm, particularly in countries vulnerable to political instability and violence. The first open letter to Zuckerberg ([link removed]) in 2016 led to the creation of the fact-checking program.
Holan and Dulamkhorloo Baatar, founder of NEST Mongolia spoke ([link removed]) to the international community of the Society for Professional Journalists about the challenges of fact-checking around the world. Holan said that while she hopes Meta executives will eventually change their minds and resume the program in the long term, she expects fact-checkers to withstand the challenges posed by reduced funding for their work.
“On a brighter note, the fact-checking community is resilient,” Holan said on The Poynter Report Podcast ([link removed]) . “We need to think about history and how we want to be remembered. Day to day, it can look very bleak, but I do think if you are pursuing truth, you’re going to end up on the right side of history. That’s what helps me get out of bed every morning.”
More coverage on Meta
* SEE Check ([link removed]) : Tijana Cvjetićanin examines how politicians, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists in Southeast Europe are responding to Meta’s termination of its U.S. fact-checking program and the loosening of content moderation, highlighting potential threats to regional media integrity.
* Reuters Institute ([link removed]) : Gretel Kahn reports that global fact-checkers in Brazil, Croatia, Italy, Nigeria, Ukraine, and the Philippines fear Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program will negatively impact their revenue and disrupt their news ecosystems amid ongoing war, attacks, and political turmoil.
* The Hill ([link removed]) : MIT’s David Rand and Cameron Martel argue that Meta’s decision to replace professional fact-checkers with community-based content moderation is out of step with public opinion. Their research shows most Americans, including the majority of Republicans, support platforms reducing harmful misinformation and using independent fact-checkers over relying solely on user-generated systems like community notes.
* Tech Policy Press ([link removed]) : Paul M. Barrett defends fact-checking against claims that it censors free speech, is biased, and ineffective, asserting its essential role remains crucial even as Meta discontinues its third-party fact-checking program.
* Axios ([link removed]) : Sara Fischer reports that Google has informed EU officials it will not integrate fact-checks into its search results or YouTube videos, nor use them for content ranking or removal, despite new EU regulations requiring such measures.
* Rest of World ([link removed]) : Ananya Bhattacharya highlights that fact-checking organizations in Pakistan, Argentina, and Brazil had already begun diversifying their revenue streams in anticipation of Meta ending its program, suggesting these groups may better withstand the impact of the withdrawal.
* New York Times ([link removed]) : Mike Isaac, Sheera Frenkel, and Kate Conger report on “Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era,” detailing how Zuckerberg ended the fact-checking program and relaxed content moderation policies after meeting with President Donald Trump. The decision, driven by the promotion of Republican ally Joel Kaplan to head global public policy, has caused internal division within Meta, with employees split over concerns about increased misinformation and the company’s alignment with Republican political interests.
* Prospect ([link removed]) : Alan Rusbridger and Khaled Mansour, members of Meta’s oversight board, write Zuckerberg’s decision follows his alignment with Trump. They express concerns about the rise of misinformation and the challenges of maintaining consistent global content standards.
* Le Monde ([link removed]) : Fabrice Fries, CEO of AFP, writes that Meta’s decision to stop fact-checking during times of massive disinformation is like dismantling the Los Angeles fire station during a major wildfire.
* Rappler ([link removed]) : In her speech at the Vatican’s Jubilee Year celebration ([link removed]) , Nobel laureate Maria Ressa emphasized the importance of fact-checking and criticized Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to end the program.
IFCN awards $2 million in ENGAGE grants to drive innovation in global fact-checking
The grants support fact-checking innovation and audience engagement worldwide.
IFCN awards $2 million in ENGAGE grants to drive innovation in global fact-checking
The International Fact-Checking Network has awarded $2 million in ENGAGE grants to 20 fact-checking organizations across 15 countries. Each recipient will receive up to $100,000 to implement innovative projects aimed at combating misinformation and deepening audience engagement. These initiatives will be implemented over the next year in Africa, Asia, Europe, India, Australia and North America.
The ENGAGE grants are part of the Global Fact Check Fund, launched in 2023 to equip fact-checkers with resources to scale operations, build sustainable revenue streams and tackle misinformation more effectively.
This year’s recipients include projects that use AI to enhance access to public data in India, develop a labeling service for the Bluesky platform and run workshops to help urban communities in Indonesia address AI-generated misinformation. Grant recipients will share their findings with the global fact-checking community to inspire and guide future efforts.
The full announcement ([link removed]) provides detailed descriptions of all selected projects.
Quick Hits
• The Week ([link removed]) : Puja Awasthi reports on THIP winning the ‘Best Health Literacy Platform’ award at Atal Samman Samaroh 2024. THIP, an IFCN signatory, fact-checks health-related claims in six languages and offers tools like the RAKSHA chatbot to combat health misinformation.
• CORRECTIV reporters Alexej Hock, Max Bernhard, Till Eckert, and Sarah Thust uncovered ([link removed]) 'Storm-1516,' a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Germany’s snap elections. The operation deployed about 100 fake websites, using deepfakes and fabricated news to discredit German politicians. Linked to Russian intelligence and pro-Russian influencers, the campaign builds on tactics used in prior U.S. election interference to sway public opinion and destabilize political discourse in Germany.
• Africa Check ([link removed]) : Fact-checking interns Muktar Balogun, Denzel Amobi, and Precious Ewuji report on their experiences in Meta’s third-party fact-checking program in 2024. The project, a partnership with IFCN-certified fact-checkers, involved verifying health misinformation, scams, deepfakes and hoaxes across platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads and WhatsApp. The interns share eight key lessons learned from their work.
•
The Washington Post ([link removed]) : Will Oremus and Naomi Nix report that NewsGuard, a company that rates the credibility of news sites, is being targeted by GOP efforts to halt its operations. Republican figures, including Brendan Carr, accuse NewsGuard of bias and of forming a “censorship cartel,” while the company defends its nonpartisan criteria.
• LatamChequea ([link removed]) : The network of Latin American fact-checkers criticized Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking program in the U.S. They argued that fact-checking empowers users with verified information rather than censoring content, refuting Mark Zuckerberg’s claims of bias. The network warned that this move could aid disinformation actors and weaken efforts to address harmful falsehoods.
Have ideas or suggestions for the next issue of Factually? Email us at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Angie Drobnic Holan
Director, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Enock Nyariki
Communications Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
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 2025
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]) .
Message Analysis
- Sender: Poynter Institute
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United States
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a
-
Email Providers:
- MailChimp