This commentary was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day 2024, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide. Angie Drobnic Holan is director of the International Fact-Checking Network. From 2013 to 2023 she was editor-in-chief of the U.S.-based fact-checking website PolitiFact.
A recent Supreme Court case put a spotlight on how social media companies like Meta moderate content on their platforms. It also put a spotlight on critics who say that content moderation — and the fact-checking that goes with it — is a form of censorship.
The Supreme Court case is primarily about the government’s actions in dealing with tech platforms: Did the Biden administration go too far in asking for takedowns of vaccine-related misinformation? For years, similar attacks have been aimed at fact-checkers. As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information.
Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate.
The misinformers have long known that the old saying “knowledge equals power” can be perverted by following a simple rule of “might makes right.” In other words, by shouting loudly enough and often enough in the public square, motivated messengers can sway public opinion even when the message is factually inaccurate.
One of the top examples that critics of fact-checking mention is the COVID-19 lab leak theory — a compelling example, because the ultimate origin of COVID is still unknown and uncertain. But it’s a very poor example of actual censorship.
Fact-checkers looked at the lab leak theory when internet memes claimed that COVID was man-made — that it came from biological laboratories where scientists study and sometimes manipulate disease-causing viruses. The theory had dramatic variations: Some said COVID was the creation of irresponsible scientists playing with virus variants, while others said that COVID was a bioweapon created by the Chinese government and released upon the world purposefully. Less dramatically, people wondered if it was a naturally occurring virus that escaped a laboratory due to carelessness.
Each of those ideas had wildly different ramifications. Fact-checkers were initially skeptical of all the theories, but they revised their work to express more uncertainty when confronted with new evidence. Because they were fact-checkers, they credited the new evidence, rather than trying to push it away for ideological or political reasons. The theory has remained widely debated and much discussed.
And to be clear, many of the social media posts about COVID that were taken down during the pandemic were not because they were fact-checked, but because they ran afoul of other social media policies on community standards and public harm. Social media companies do not typically remove false information because of factual correction alone. Takedowns typically happen for illegal content; content that could cause public harm; or content that runs afoul of rules on hate speech or other community standards.
Critics of fact-checkers have tried to muddy this distinction, and as a fact-checker, I worry they are succeeding. But the truth is that no fact-checker has been given authority by any tech platform to take down content. The fact-checkers I work with would rather see inaccurate content contextualized and labeled, so it can remain part of the public record and the public debate.
Fact-checkers’ strong desire to keep information available and accessible is yet another irony of the fact-checkers-as-censors argument. The reality is that fact-checking is an activity deeply embedded in the ideals of free speech and free expression. Fact-checkers require the right and ability to freely investigate ideas, find sources, read widely and interview experts who can speak candidly, all as part of their methodology and process. This intellectual freedom is the bedrock on which all fact-checking is built. Countries with strong traditions of free expression and freedom of the press tend to have a lot of fact-checkers, while countries with press restrictions tend to have few. The roster of fact-checkers who participate in the International Fact-Checking Network shows this trend clearly.
When fact-checkers aren’t dealing with accusations of censorship, we face another crisis of confidence among those who might otherwise support us. There’s a trend among both the right and the left to say that fact-checking doesn’t “work,” or that it’s been proven ineffective. Nothing could be further from the truth — though it does depend a lot on what people mean by fact-checking “working” or “being effective.”
Often, by “working,” skeptics of fact-checking mean that it doesn’t change people’s political views or sway their outlooks. That’s true; fact-checking doesn’t do that. But it’s not supposed to. Politics experts have long known that people’s political views tend to be changed by discussions and persuasion from their friends and family, not by reading fact checks.
Another complaint is that fact-checking is not a “solution” to the problem of misinformation on the internet. But misinformation isn’t a problem that can be solved with a single approach. Saying fact-checking doesn’t work is a bit like saying we should get rid of firefighters because buildings are still catching fire.
Fact-checking’s actual aim is to continuously improve the quality of information that people use to make decisions about their own lives. Research has shown that fact checks are highly effective in correcting misperceptions around false claims, and this is vitally important in an online world where everyday photos are taken out of context; where manipulated audio is passed off as real; and where video game footage is presented as video from actual military conflict.
In these contexts, fact-checking journalism is a crucial safety mechanism that helps weed out factually false information. Fact-checkers have debunked demonstrably false claims about the efficacy of vaccines; about the location and dates of elections; about the falsity of war propaganda, and about beloved celebrities who are still alive. During elections, they provide critical context to public policy issues from health care to economics to foreign policy, and they correct the excesses of political messaging that distorts and deceives average voters trying to make common-sense decisions.
Are fact-checkers perfect? We are not. We are human beings subject to human error. But that’s why fact-checkers have corrections policies. The value of fact-checking is that it seeks conclusions based on evidence and logical processes, and fact-checkers correct their reports when confronted with new evidence. Rather than having a predetermined political agenda, fact-checkers try to compile the best of what is known for the benefit of all stakeholders.
In recent years, critics of fact-checking have been emboldened to make false claims about fact-checking itself, in order to promote a survival-of-the-fittest, anything-goes atmosphere on the internet and in the world when it comes to public debate. They want the loudest voices to win the fight, regardless of logic, evidence or coherence.
Fact-checking stands as a check on that noise, ever reminding us that evidence can be complicated and uncertain, that volume isn’t the same thing as verity, and that the truth is something that must be worked out continuously, again and again, but never once and for all.
