20200
P
1
20100
R  E
2
2070
D   I   C
3
2050
T   I   O   N
4
2040
S   F   O   R   J
5
2030
O  U  R  N  A  L
6
2020
I  S  M  2  0  2  0
7

A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters

“The facts unearthed by reporters and other watchdogs are a resource for public action, but they tend to make a real difference only when they are mobilized by political campaigns or social movements, or used to trigger institutional responses from regulators or the courts.”

If recent history is any guide, the U.S. presidential contest next year will bring a surge in political fact-checking — and, inevitably, a spate of pieces asking whether it matters or calling it a waste of effort.

Critics will point to politicians like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who gleefully ignore fact-checkers and repeat debunked claims without seeming to pay any price. They’ll cite abundant research showing that corrections are less effective in dislodging false beliefs tied to our partisan preferences, and that they may never reach the relevant audience in the first place. These critiques will only be sharpened by mounting fears about the influence of disinformation campaigns on Facebook and other social networks.

But here’s a more hopeful prediction: Amid all of the hand-wringing, 2020 will also see a smarter conversation taking shape about how facts and fact-checking matter in democratic politics.

Too often our expectations for fact-checking reflect what could be called the Scooby-Doo model of political accountability — for the moment at the end of every episode of that cartoon when the villain is unmasked (literally) and carted off to jail, usually muttering something about how he would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for “you meddling kids.” There’s no doubt or debate here: Once the facts come to light, the consequences follow automatically.

The same unrealistic assumptions come through in the neatly packaged histories we use affirm the democratic role of the Fourth Estate — for example, in the glossy version of the Watergate story, where dogged reporters expose wrongdoing, turn the nation against a corrupt president, and unleash a wave of legislative reforms. There’s some truth in this kind of myth-making, but it erases the crucial part played by other institutions (like Congress and the Justice Department), overlooks how slowly public opinion shifted, and most of all makes the outcome seem like a foregone conclusion.

Our idealized notion of how facts should work in politics is rooted at least partly in the “folk theory” of democracy you probably learned in civics class — the one with the highly attentive citizens who evaluate all the information they glean from the news, form reasoned opinions based on them, and render their judgments on Election Day. Under this ideal, the key problem in politics is always to provide the right information; when outcomes don’t match our expectations, the problem must be that voters are misinformed. (In fact, the best evidence suggests that so-called “fake news” has limited reach and limited effects, and did not play the decisive role often attributed to it in recent elections.)

This isn’t to say that efforts by fact-checkers and other journalists to nail down the facts don’t matter — on the contrary, they’re vital. But accurate information rarely settles political questions on its own. The facts unearthed by reporters and other watchdogs are a resource for public action, but they tend to make a real difference only when they are mobilized by political campaigns or social movements, or used to trigger institutional responses from regulators or the courts.

Fact-checkers know better than anyone that publishing is only the first step in an incremental process that, in the best cases, can help push political discourse onto firmer ground. They partner with major media outlets, and with platforms like Facebook, to reach the biggest audience they can. Many also work with media literacy campaigns to educate young people about online misinformation, or with academic researchers to test the best methods for correcting false beliefs. Some fact-checkers have tried to move beyond what they call the “publish and pray” model, for instance, by actively seeking corrections from politicians and news organizations, or by working with public agencies to promote better handling of official statistics.

It goes without saying that none of these efforts will “solve” the problem of political lying and misinformation. But by rejecting reductive debates about whether fact-checking “works” or not, we’ll take an important step toward understanding what kinds of measures actually can help to promote fact-based discourse — and affirm the value of fact-checking as an institution dedicated to that goal.

Lucas Graves is an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin.

If recent history is any guide, the U.S. presidential contest next year will bring a surge in political fact-checking — and, inevitably, a spate of pieces asking whether it matters or calling it a waste of effort.

Critics will point to politicians like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who gleefully ignore fact-checkers and repeat debunked claims without seeming to pay any price. They’ll cite abundant research showing that corrections are less effective in dislodging false beliefs tied to our partisan preferences, and that they may never reach the relevant audience in the first place. These critiques will only be sharpened by mounting fears about the influence of disinformation campaigns on Facebook and other social networks.

But here’s a more hopeful prediction: Amid all of the hand-wringing, 2020 will also see a smarter conversation taking shape about how facts and fact-checking matter in democratic politics.

Too often our expectations for fact-checking reflect what could be called the Scooby-Doo model of political accountability — for the moment at the end of every episode of that cartoon when the villain is unmasked (literally) and carted off to jail, usually muttering something about how he would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for “you meddling kids.” There’s no doubt or debate here: Once the facts come to light, the consequences follow automatically.

The same unrealistic assumptions come through in the neatly packaged histories we use affirm the democratic role of the Fourth Estate — for example, in the glossy version of the Watergate story, where dogged reporters expose wrongdoing, turn the nation against a corrupt president, and unleash a wave of legislative reforms. There’s some truth in this kind of myth-making, but it erases the crucial part played by other institutions (like Congress and the Justice Department), overlooks how slowly public opinion shifted, and most of all makes the outcome seem like a foregone conclusion.

Our idealized notion of how facts should work in politics is rooted at least partly in the “folk theory” of democracy you probably learned in civics class — the one with the highly attentive citizens who evaluate all the information they glean from the news, form reasoned opinions based on them, and render their judgments on Election Day. Under this ideal, the key problem in politics is always to provide the right information; when outcomes don’t match our expectations, the problem must be that voters are misinformed. (In fact, the best evidence suggests that so-called “fake news” has limited reach and limited effects, and did not play the decisive role often attributed to it in recent elections.)

This isn’t to say that efforts by fact-checkers and other journalists to nail down the facts don’t matter — on the contrary, they’re vital. But accurate information rarely settles political questions on its own. The facts unearthed by reporters and other watchdogs are a resource for public action, but they tend to make a real difference only when they are mobilized by political campaigns or social movements, or used to trigger institutional responses from regulators or the courts.

Fact-checkers know better than anyone that publishing is only the first step in an incremental process that, in the best cases, can help push political discourse onto firmer ground. They partner with major media outlets, and with platforms like Facebook, to reach the biggest audience they can. Many also work with media literacy campaigns to educate young people about online misinformation, or with academic researchers to test the best methods for correcting false beliefs. Some fact-checkers have tried to move beyond what they call the “publish and pray” model, for instance, by actively seeking corrections from politicians and news organizations, or by working with public agencies to promote better handling of official statistics.

It goes without saying that none of these efforts will “solve” the problem of political lying and misinformation. But by rejecting reductive debates about whether fact-checking “works” or not, we’ll take an important step toward understanding what kinds of measures actually can help to promote fact-based discourse — and affirm the value of fact-checking as an institution dedicated to that goal.

Lucas Graves is an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin.

Kathleen Searles   Pay more attention to attention

Sonali Prasad   Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional

Kevin Douglas Grant   The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth

Carl Bialik   Journalists will try running the whole shop

Jeff Kofman   Speed through technology

Kristen Muller   The year we operationalize community engagement

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams   A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions

Tamar Charney   From broadcast to bespoke

Joni Deutsch   Podcasting unsilences the silent

Mike Caulfield   Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd

Nathalie Malinarich   Betting on loyalty

Brenda P. Salinas   Treating MP3 files like text

james Wahutu   Western journalists, learn from your African peers

Imaeyen Ibanga   Let’s take it slow

Bill Grueskin   Our ethics codes get an overhaul

Stefanie Murray   Charitable giving goes collaborative

Lucas Graves   A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters

John Garrett   It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization

Tom Glaisyer   Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful

Margarita Noriega   The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms

M. Scott Havens   First-party data becomes media’s most important currency

Sue Robinson   Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments

Joe Amditis   Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table

Jasmine McNealy   A call for context

Sara K. Baranowski   A big year for little newspapers

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   The business we want, not the business we had

Fiona Spruill   The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves

Josh Schwartz   Publishers move beyond the metered paywall

Ståle Grut   OSINT journalism goes mainstream

Joshua Darr   All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse

Greg Emerson   News apps fall further behind

Rachel Schallom   The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates

Simon Galperin   Journalism becomes more democratic

Colleen Shalby   Journalists become media literacy teachers

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young   The promise of nonprofit journalism

Pablo Boczkowski   The day after November 4

Ernie Smith   The death of the industry fad

Adam Thomas   The silver bullet

Alexandra Borchardt   Get out of the office and talk to people

L. Gordon Crovitz   Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms

Brian Moritz   The end of “stick to sports”

Sarah Marshall   The year to learn about news moments

Linda Solomon Wood   Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal

Monica Drake   A renewed focus on misinformation

Nushin Rashidian   Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?

Rachel Davis Mersey   The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide

Jennifer Brandel   A love letter from the year 2073

Tonya Mosley   The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends

Bill Adair   A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song

Helen Havlak   Platforms shine a light on original reporting

Candis Callison   Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change

Mariana Moura Santos   The future of journalism is collaborative

Cristina Kim   Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”

Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor   Think twice before turning to Twitter

Hossein Derakhshan   AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris

Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz   News coverage gets geo-fragmented

Michael W. Wagner   Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative

Knight Foundation   Five generations of journalists, learning from each other

Julia B. Chan   We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏

Alana Levinson   Brand-backed media gets another look

Matt DeRienzo   Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers

Beena Raghavendran   The year of the local engagement reporter

Lauren Duca   The rise of the journalistic influencer

Felix Salmon   Spotify launches a news channel

Jeremy Olshan   All journalism should be service journalism

A.J. Bauer   A fork in the road for conservative media

Steve Henn   The dawning audio web

Barbara Gray   Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement

Christa Scharfenberg   It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women

Mario García   Think small (screen)

Seth C. Lewis   20 questions for 2020

Joanne McNeil   A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)

Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper   Power to the people (on your audience team)

Raney Aronson-Rath   News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions

Geneva Overholser   Death to bothsidesism

Jonas Kaiser   Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists

Millie Tran   Wicked

Marie Gilot   This is fine

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show

S. Mitra Kalita   The race to 2021

Emily Withrow   The year we kill the news article

Talia Stroud   The work of reconnecting starts November 4

Alice Antheaume   Trade “politics” for “power”

Tanya Cordrey   Saying no to more good ideas

Don Day   Respect the non-paying audience

Sarah Alvarez   I’m ready for post-news

Logan Jaffe   You don’t need fancy tools to listen

Elizabeth Dunbar   Frank talk, and then action

Dannagal G. Young   Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

Rick Berke   Incoming fire from both left and right

Anthony Nadler   Clash of Clans: Election Edition

Carrie Brown-Smith   Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening

Catalina Albeanu   Rebuilding journalism, together

An Xiao Mina   The Forum we wanted, the forum we got

Zizi Papacharissi   A president leads, the press follows, reality fades

Annie Rudd   The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline

Doris Truong   The year of radical salary transparency

Meg Marco   Everything happens somewhere

Craig Newmark   Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation

Cindy Royal   Prepare media students for skills, not job titles

Errin Haines   Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story

Nikki Usher   All systems down

Meredith Artley   Stronger solidarity among news organizations

Jake Shapiro   Podcasting gets listener relationship management

Jim Brady   We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own

John Keefe   Journalism gets hacked

Laura E. Davis   Know the context your journalism is operating within

Kerri Hoffman   Opening closed systems

Cory Haik   We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it

Monique Judge   The year to organize, unionize, and fight

Whitney Phillips   A time to question core beliefs

Mira Lowe   The year of student-powered journalism

Peter Bale   Lies get further normalized

Heidi Tworek   The year of positive pushback

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks

Nicholas Jackson   What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support

Matthew Pressman   News consumers divide into haves and have-nots

Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb   Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage

Heather Bryant   Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

Francesco Zaffarano   TikTok without generational prejudice

Masuma Ahuja   Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful

Sarah Stonbely   More people start caring about news inequality

Ben Werdmuller   Use the tools of journalism to save it

Sarah Schmalbach   Journalist, quantify thyself

Irving Washington   Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job

Jakob Moll   A slow-moving tech backlash among young people

Dan Shanoff   Sports media enters the Bronny era

Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker   A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech

Nico Gendron   Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z

Kourtney Bitterly   Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation

Victor Pickard   We reclaim a public good

Richard J. Tofel   A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges