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. Eric Litke leads the Fact-Check Team at USA Today, where this piece first appeared.
Since fact-checkers present themselves as arbiters of truth, it’s only fair that some readers wonder if we’re being, well, truthful.
So “Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?” is a common response to our work. The question is generally used as an attempted “gotcha,” but it actually has a real and critically important answer.
It’s you. You should fact-check the fact-checkers.
Proper fact-checking requires critical thinking, deep reporting, precise writing and an obsession with fairness. But most importantly, it requires transparency. Because no one should walk away from a story that declares something false feeling like they have to take our word for it.
Fact-checkers throughout the world present their findings in a variety of formats, languages and styles, but this is the thread that should unite us all. We’re going to tell you not just what we found, but where we found it. Not just what’s true, but which interviews and documents made us confident in the rating we assigned.
As one colleague likes to say, we bring receipts.
When you read a story from the Fact-Check Team at USA Today, you’ll find text peppered with links. They will take you to the exact claim we’re fact-checking. To the background reading we did to make sure we’re examining the claim in the proper societal context. To the biographies of the experts we interviewed so you can see for yourself if they have the right credentials and are free from bias. To the studies or data or authoritative websites we relied on to sort fact from fiction. And in case you miss any sourcing as you read, you’ll also find a bullet-point source list at the end of each story that includes the where, when and what of every source we relied on to determine the rating.
When fact-checkers dig into a claim, we’re not just looking for any expert who is willing to talk. We’re looking for the person who knows this topic better than anyone else. We’re looking for datasets with a sound methodology to ensure no one is relying on cherry-picked or small-sample-size data. And we’re going to insist on primary sources rather than taking someone’s word for what a document or a law says. These are, admittedly, judgment calls, and that’s why we’re diligently transparent about who we talked to and what we read — so you can check our work.
You’ll find a similar approach from other reputable fact-checkers because this transparency is required of all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. Becoming a signatory (as about 175 organizations are around the world) requires a demonstrated commitment to using unbiased sources, relying on primary material, identifying multiple lines of evidence and including links to all of the above so readers can replicate our work.
This transparency is how we seek to earn your trust. Even if you disagree with the final rating (fact-checkers also disagree on this sometimes), you can see how we got there and read thoroughly sourced background on the issue.
So please, click the links, background the experts, review the documents and crunch the numbers. I’m going to bet that if you do you’ll reach the same conclusion we did. If you don’t, feel free to let us know. Because if we got it wrong, we’ll be transparent about that, too. A public corrections policy allows us to recognize and address errors in an open and honest way. Because every now and then, even fact-checkers need a fact-check.
