Q&A: Indian fact-checkers lead with innovation and diversity, says IFCN director after Delhi visit

Following her trip to Delhi last month to meet Indian fact-checkers, Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, sat down with Jatin Gandhi of Vishvas News — an IFCN signatory and part of Jagran New Media — for an interview. Here’s their conversation, lightly edited for style and clarity.

Jatin Gandhi: How did you decide to come to India and with what purpose?

Angie Drobnic Holan: I became director of the IFCN in 2023 and I knew right away that I wanted to visit India because the fact-checkers in India have long been an important part of the International Fact-Checking Network community. There are more fact-checking organizations in India than any other single country; there are 17 IFCN signatories in India, and several of them had suggested to me right from the beginning that I visit. On a personal level, I had never been to India. I certainly wanted to explore its rich history, its cultural offerings, and its delicious food. So, with all of that in mind, I decided to make the trip.

Gandhi: What did you do and who did you meet?

Holan: During my trip, I prioritized meeting with the fact-checkers of India, and I believe I met with the majority of them: those based in Delhi and a few that were willing to travel to Delhi to meet with me. On the first full day of my visit, we had a meeting that gathered all the IFCN signatories who were able to attend. We talked about the network, how it works, and how we could improve it. We also had a meeting of the regional network, the Misinformation Combat Alliance.

Gandhi: What are the insights that you are carrying back from this visit?

Holan: I think the main insights that I gathered were just a lot more specific knowledge of the fact-checking community in India. I was able to do a number of site visits to newsrooms of fact-checkers, so I was able to see the diversity of the fact-checking organizations. There are fact-checking divisions inside large media houses, and there are small independent fact-checkers. Then there are fact-checkers who look at all aspects of public conversation, and there are some who are specialized in topics such as healthcare. Getting to know this community in depth was a strong insight into how they work, where they see opportunities, what their strengths are, and what their concerns about the future are.

Gandhi: Were there any surprises or any “I-thought-so” moments? Also what are some of the insights that you now have about Indian fact-checking?

Holan: There are a couple of attributes that stand out to me. The first is the diversity of the fact-checkers. India is a very large country, and it’s able to support these 17 fact-checking organizations, and there’s a lot of diversity within the community. Also, the fact-checking organizations are very entrepreneurial. They’re very interested in sustainability and finding ways to reach new audiences. Sometimes they seem a little competitive with each other in a good way. They want to do good work, and they also work in a large number of languages. In some ways, if you look at the fact-checkers of India, they represent many of the concerns that fact-checkers share globally but in one country. So I will be looking to the India fact-checking community more for insights, ideas and leadership on how to improve fact-checking globally.

Gandhi: What is your view of the Misinformation Combat Alliance, and how do you see its work in India?

Holan: I want the International Fact-Checking Network and the Misinformation Combat Alliance to work together to promote fact-checking in India. I think networks like the MCA are very, very important to supporting fact-checkers in their own countries or regions. As a global organization, the IFCN represents global values and aspirations around accuracy, independence, and transparency. But it can’t help signatories on the ground in every instance because it’s just beyond our capacity. So, I think the MCA is a terrific organization to help fact-checkers in India work together, accomplish common goals, set standards, and help the fact-checking organizations work in the specific business, legal, and cultural context of India.

Gandhi: You had meetings with tech companies and civil society organizations. What is their perception of fact-checking in India?

Holan: I think they are supportive of the fact-checking community as something that improves public conversations by promoting accuracy, pointing out when things are wrong, and pointing out accurate and verified sources of information. I think India has a strong sense of community, so I do see a lot of these stakeholders talking about how they can work together towards common goals, such as that of an informed public. My overall impression is that the tech companies and the civil society view fact-checking very positively and are looking to support it.

Gandhi: Platforms have varying responses to fact-checking, from offering financial support to running programs like the third-party fact-checking initiative, but do you think they need to do more on the issue of platform responsibility?

Holan:Yes, I think they need to do more. I think the problem of false information online is recognized worldwide as something that’s been very difficult to address. So I think more can always be done. The platforms have supported fact-checking organizations, and that’s very laudable, but I think that all the stakeholders need to be working together to help improve public spaces online so that they’re more fact-based and evidence-based.

Gandhi: Are there any projects that you have in mind as a result of your India trip?

Holan: I was very impressed by the technical capacity of the fact-checkers of India. Many of them have advanced techniques in using artificial intelligence. Many of them are quite prolific, putting out a lot of fact checks and sharing them on social media. So when I think about the projects that could result from this, it’s taking some of these techniques and showing them to the global fact-checking community. Also, I’m especially impressed with the way the fact-checkers are also doing in-person work in media literacy and health care fact-checking. They’re actually working with the public in real-world settings to promote good habits in finding information online, sharing information, all that sort of thing.

Gandhi: You were also in Africa meeting fact-checkers before coming to India. What are the differences between the European, African, and Indian fact-checking ecosystems, and what is it that these three can learn from each other?

Holan: This is such an important question. I think there are important differences between the three ecosystems. In Europe, the fact-checkers have high capacity and are highly organized. They’ve been working with the European Union around regulations of tech platforms. They have a law called the Digital Services Act that fact-checkers work with and monitor to try to work toward improved accuracy on tech platforms. So the European fact-checkers are very policy-oriented, and many of their discussions involve policy. They also do collaborative projects around common issues like the European Union elections or climate change.

In Africa, the emphasis is more on building up the capacity of individual fact-checkers. Not every country in Africa has a recognized fact-checking member of the IFCN. So, in a lot of cases, the established African fact-checkers are coaching and mentoring groups in other countries around the continent that are trying to develop themselves into self-sustaining organizations. Africa is also subject to a lot of misinformation that originates outside the continent, and the fact-checkers who are from Africa are trying to deal with this and look at the best ways to investigate disinformation campaigns in Africa. There are also many local languages in Africa, and fact-checkers have to make important decisions on how to help those audiences.

Then, in India, the fact-checking community is very entrepreneurial and works in multiple languages in exciting ways. India has some of the issues of Europe with concerns about public policy, and some of the concerns of Africa about developing fact-checking in multiple languages. So, I think that perhaps India and Africa could share how they work across multiple languages. I think there’s certainly public policy lessons to be learned from Europe and how the fact-checkers there are dealing with new internet regulations. And then, I think we all have things to learn from each other on technology, capacity and AI. As I said, some of the Indian signatories are very advanced on technical capacity and artificial intelligence.

Gandhi: Where particularly do you think the Indian fact-checking community can learn from the other two?

Holan: I think the Indian fact-checking community and, frankly, all the global community can learn from the European fact-checkers on how they’ve been monitoring misinformation on social media and how they deal with public efforts to regulate internet companies. I think Africa and India are leading the way on fact-checking in multiple languages, and there may be some learnings there.

Gandhi: In the context of the legal framework that you mentioned in the EU in contrast with Africa, do you think in India enabling legislation can support fact-checking better?

Holan: The EU has this Digital Services Act that they apply across the whole continent because they have the legal framework of the European Union. Africa does not have that sort of legal framework. They have strong relationships among the countries of Africa, but it’s quite different from the European Union and how the law works. 

I think this is an area for study, where I don’t have strong recommendations because the cultural context of different countries varies so much. 

I think most of the fact-checkers who are members of the IFCN are very much watching each other’s countries and enabling legislation to see how different communities handle working with the internet. 

In some places there are serious concerns about freedom of expression, and in other places there aren’t. The European fact-checkers have said they’re quite comfortable with the EU regulations and that they’re not worried about freedom of expression being curtailed. But in other countries there is concern that some laws are about governments exercising more control over political opposition. So I think we’re all watching these things to see what the best practices are. To sum up, I think the enabling legislation tends to be highly specific to the individual countries and to their context, and the fact-checkers on the ground are best positioned to say when freedom of expression is being infringed.

Gandhi: Let’s talk a bit about the near future and the not-so-near future. What do you think will be the likely impact of the U.S. election’s results on fact-checking in the U.S. and worldwide?

Holan: I think it’s too soon to say what the impact will be. Certainly, it’s no secret that Donald Trump’s supporters have been very skeptical of fact-checking and have raised concerns about it being censorship. Fact-checkers are against censorship, so I’m not sure all of their concerns are genuine. I think, in some ways, it’s political positioning, so that they can advance their own messaging without being slowed down by concerns about accuracy. It’s important to note that surveys show that the public values accurate information online. They don’t want a free-for-all, where everyone has to fact-check everything for themselves. They want technology companies to take steps to encourage truthful information and discourage false information. And I think, over the long term, that trend will show its strength. The majority of the public supports easy access to truthful information.

Gandhi: What do you think fact-checkers can do to mitigate this impact?

Holan: I think fact-checkers right now need to make the case for their work and why it’s so valuable. What fact-checkers are doing is giving people access to accurate, credible information with transparent sourcing. The goal is not to censor or to control public debates, but simply to show the public where things are supported by evidence and where they’re not. I think there are many stakeholders across countries and cultural contexts that have the same goals as fact-checkers, and we need to work together to promote media literacy and information integrity.

Gandhi: I understand that the code of principles is up for change. As the IFCN director, what is the direction of change you would like to see in the code of principles?

Holan: I think the basics of the code of principles are very strong. The basics being accuracy, methodology, transparency, and independence. There are some parts of the code that are not as specific as they could be, particularly around ownership and finances. People really do want to know who is paying for the news that they consume, and I think that there are some things that we could do to make those parts of the code of principles more clear and more transparent. 

There are also some places where the IFCN code of principles is totally silent, like when artificial intelligence is involved. When we published the code of principles, we didn’t have artificial intelligence, and now I think there are going to be some ideas that we can include about responsible ways of using AI to fact-check and debunk claims.

Gandhi: Now that the IFCN community has grown to nearly 180 fact-checkers, and after seeing all the diversity, does it sometimes bother you that the IFCN may not be representative enough given the diversity of the ecosystem?

Holan: Currently, I don’t see this as a major concern. I think the IFCN has a lot of diversity within the 180 fact-checkers. I do think that there are questions about capacity — how much a global organization can serve all these fact-checkers specifically and individually. That’s why we’re so encouraging of the trend toward new regional networks or in-country networks. 

I think the fact-checking movement has grown by leaps and bounds and has proven its worth in an internet age where people want to verify information and where people have access to more information than ever before. I think the IFCN community is strong, and it can get stronger, and that growth is going to yield increasing diversity.

Gandhi: How does the IFCN collaborate with the outside world?

Holan: The IFCN is always looking to collaborate with people who share our values of accurate information, independence and transparency. 

We currently work with some of the technology companies, and we would love to see new collaborations and programs, especially around fact-checking video. 

We’re also hoping to increase training for fact-checkers so that they can do their best work and have the resources they need to outreach to the public, media literacy campaigns, and similar initiatives. We’re very keen to hear about new ideas for collaboration.

Gandhi: In the end, can you sum up the high points or low points of your India trip?

Holan: I really loved this trip both personally and professionally. The high points were that I got to meet with a lot of the fact-checking organizations and see their newsrooms, meet their staff, hear about their concerns, and hear about what has them excited for the future. There is so much dedication within the fact-checking community of India, such a strong desire to do good work for the benefit of the public. 

India is the world’s largest democracy, and I heard a lot from the fact-checkers about how they see accurate, vetted information as being an important part of that cultural heritage. I really admire that. On a personal note, I loved seeing the culture and architecture of India. I got to visit the Taj Mahal, which will be something I’ll remember for the rest of my life. It’s such a beautiful monument of historic importance, and to see it in person was really special. 

And then I just loved the warmth of the people of India. People were so welcoming, and the fact-checking community helped make my trip very smooth and very informative. I can’t wait to return.

A version of this interview originally appeared in Jagran New Media and is republished here with permission.