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.

Kristen Muller   The year we operationalize community engagement

Ernie Smith   The death of the industry fad

Sarah Alvarez   I’m ready for post-news

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

Jasmine McNealy   A call for context

james Wahutu   Western journalists, learn from your African peers

Jeremy Olshan   All journalism should be service journalism

Anthony Nadler   Clash of Clans: Election Edition

Simon Galperin   Journalism becomes more democratic

Ståle Grut   OSINT journalism goes mainstream

Francesco Zaffarano   TikTok without generational prejudice

Doris Truong   The year of radical salary transparency

Kathleen Searles   Pay more attention to attention

Cristina Kim   Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”

Jennifer Brandel   A love letter from the year 2073

Ben Werdmuller   Use the tools of journalism to save it

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

Beena Raghavendran   The year of the local engagement reporter

Adam Thomas   The silver bullet

Cindy Royal   Prepare media students for skills, not job titles

Marie Gilot   This is fine

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

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

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

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

Tonya Mosley   The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends

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

Victor Pickard   We reclaim a public good

Monique Judge   The year to organize, unionize, and fight

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

Seth C. Lewis   20 questions for 2020

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show

Logan Jaffe   You don’t need fancy tools to listen

Jake Shapiro   Podcasting gets listener relationship management

Brian Moritz   The end of “stick to sports”

Monica Drake   A renewed focus on misinformation

Sara K. Baranowski   A big year for little newspapers

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

Meredith Artley   Stronger solidarity among news organizations

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

Jeff Kofman   Speed through technology

Tanya Cordrey   Saying no to more good ideas

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

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

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

Alice Antheaume   Trade “politics” for “power”

Carl Bialik   Journalists will try running the whole shop

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

Hossein Derakhshan   AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris

Mike Caulfield   Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd

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

Julia B. Chan   We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏

Stefanie Murray   Charitable giving goes collaborative

Jakob Moll   A slow-moving tech backlash among young people

Imaeyen Ibanga   Let’s take it slow

Pablo Boczkowski   The day after November 4

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

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

Alexandra Borchardt   Get out of the office and talk to people

Felix Salmon   Spotify launches a news channel

Nathalie Malinarich   Betting on loyalty

Steve Henn   The dawning audio web

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

Sarah Marshall   The year to learn about news moments

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

Fiona Spruill   The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves

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

Heather Bryant   Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

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

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

Sarah Schmalbach   Journalist, quantify thyself

Alana Levinson   Brand-backed media gets another look

Rachel Schallom   The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates

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

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

Craig Newmark   Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation

Joni Deutsch   Podcasting unsilences the silent

Brenda P. Salinas   Treating MP3 files like text

Helen Havlak   Platforms shine a light on original reporting

Nushin Rashidian   Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?

Sonali Prasad   Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional

Colleen Shalby   Journalists become media literacy teachers

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

Jonas Kaiser   Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists

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

Don Day   Respect the non-paying audience

Talia Stroud   The work of reconnecting starts November 4

S. Mitra Kalita   The race to 2021

Annie Rudd   The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph

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

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young   The promise of nonprofit journalism

Rick Berke   Incoming fire from both left and right

Barbara Gray   Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement

Nikki Usher   All systems down

Sarah Stonbely   More people start caring about news inequality

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

Millie Tran   Wicked

Whitney Phillips   A time to question core beliefs

Catalina Albeanu   Rebuilding journalism, together

Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor   Think twice before turning to Twitter

Elizabeth Dunbar   Frank talk, and then action

Sue Robinson   Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments

Mariana Moura Santos   The future of journalism is collaborative

Mira Lowe   The year of student-powered journalism

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

Josh Schwartz   Publishers move beyond the metered paywall

Tom Glaisyer   Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful

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

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

Candis Callison   Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change

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

Greg Emerson   News apps fall further behind

Tamar Charney   From broadcast to bespoke

Michael W. Wagner   Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative

Peter Bale   Lies get further normalized

Lauren Duca   The rise of the journalistic influencer

Matthew Pressman   News consumers divide into haves and have-nots

John Keefe   Journalism gets hacked

Dan Shanoff   Sports media enters the Bronny era

Bill Grueskin   Our ethics codes get an overhaul

Kerri Hoffman   Opening closed systems

Heidi Tworek   The year of positive pushback

Geneva Overholser   Death to bothsidesism

Joe Amditis   Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table

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

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

Masuma Ahuja   Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful

Knight Foundation   Five generations of journalists, learning from each other

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

Meg Marco   Everything happens somewhere

Mario García   Think small (screen)

Emily Withrow   The year we kill the news article

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