Fact checkers tend to agree on validity of news claims, researchers say
phys.org
phys.org
I cannot seem to find in the paper if there is a bias in selection of fact checkers. How is it measured and mitigated in fact-checking?
The second part is fact-checker qualification. How is the fact-checker's expertise in the checked article measured? There is reference to quality based on quantity of "fact-checking articles" written, but that, even under the best circumstances cannot be considered expertise in the subject of the fact checked article.
What I would like to see is explicit & published procedure of fact-checking by every fact checking organization.
That is, as a process something like: Article to be checked --> extract statements --> verify statements through predetermined sources --> result.
I think it would eliminate most (some?) of the distrust with fact-checking.
I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some? As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it. Certainly sources could be used to inform the reader, but there's no reason I can see to predetermine/pre-enumerate them. Even Wikipedia doesn't try to do that.
tl;dr: all that's really required is for the fact check to be correct
> I can't find if there actually is much distrust with fact checking, aside from people who literally disagree with the facts. Do you, personally? If so, is there a paper backing why you do?
This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites?
When it comes to top stories, I prefer sites that present a comparison of the same topic across the spectrum sources (e.g., ground.news, allsides.com). Can these sites also be gamed? Yes, but much less and the onus and opportunity of validating the information is right there in front of me.
> I couldn't find any evidence of bias either, but maybe a future study might find some?
I am not looking for evidence of bias. I am looking for evidence of checking for bias.
> As for the qualifications, they're irrelevant to the facts. An uneducated child correctly stating a fact is just as correct as a PhD stating it.
I understand the attempt at extreme example, but I disagree. You will have a hard time convincing me that a person not versed at least rudimentarily in the subject of the target article will be able to make appropriate research and validate the claims. Polymaths are rare nowadays, and the chance of them working all as fact-checkers is slim to none, and Slim is on vacation.
If you are correct, then in the same accord peer reviews of scientific papers are a sham, and we should just accept all at face value, or have general public do fact-checking on them. (Well, not a perfect example, as many peer-reviews are sadly a sham.)
This reads like you are, in fact, moving the goalposts. While I respect you as a person, you don't have to do anything. What you personally do or don't do, trust or don't trust, doesn't affect whether the fact-check was correct or not. Your goodness and value as a person notwithstanding, 1 person distrusting something is both negligible and ignorable in the grand scheme of things.
On the other hand, if there were data saying a significant majority of people share your views that a particular source's fact-checks are actually counter-factual, then there might be reason to discuss it as an issue*. How many others believe that a fact-checking source need to be a polymath to view videos and verify that the president said something in their speech?
tl;dr: Are we sure there is actually a problem that needs solving here? Let's fact-check that. There totally could be, I'm just a fan of letting data do the talking.
* - Wikipedia does a good job, in my opinion, of litigating such concerns of source reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)
Note that Linebarger, in his "Psychological Warfare" textbook, points out that for propaganda purposes it is not so much truth and falsity, but the selection of truths and the spin put upon them that matters. (or is he just old-fashioned, having written that mid-20th century?)
(speaking of agreement: fwiw, I learned how to do crowd estimation from a textbook, and have found that reported "police estimates" are generally very close to my own, based on ∑density*area)
Relatedly, wonder how you get published in the Harvard Misinformation Review.
Side note: it’s wild to me how effective Soviet-style propaganda-as-education still is. For ex. I received a stack of ballots in my mailbox that I didn’t ask for. I don’t need ten thousand Snopes articles that never answer legitimate questions somebody might have from that.
I suggest following the tree in the "Source" part of Linebarger's STASM analysis framework (source is the first S) if you ever wish to go deeper than just "cui bono?"
(on a related topic, push polls were already in use by the Creel Committee at the dawn of C20)
They "fact check" satire web sites. They "fact check" an undeniably true statement with a "lacks context" label and respond with their own talking points.
Which I think is unavoidable. I would find it hard to "fact check" a true statement from someone I disagreed with without providing additional information that I considered important. But at that point, it's not a fact check. I do not need Snopes to fact check the Babylon Bee article "California Considering a Tax on Breathing" for me.
None of these fact checkers are doing fact checking. Fact checking is impossible. Facts lack context, and the decision as to what context is important is always going to be contested. It's going to be political.
As to the claim that "facts lack context", here are some low-context essential facts:
0 + 0 = 0
P & Q ⊆ P
fire burns, here and in persia
all men are mortal
the earth is sphericalIf it was politically important, then yes, there would be a fact check that asserted that 0 + 0 = 0 lacks context.
In politically important cases, should we ask for anything more? (can we ask for anything more?)
I like Linebarger's theory on these cases: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#:~... but maybe wartime propaganda is important enough that they strove to be factual; while modern journalism is just the cheapest way for publishers to fill necessary space between the ads?
(I understand that those in the business have done studies, and know for each genre of publication exactly what the optimal ratio of article text to ad spots may be; publishers are not journalists, and if they could've retained an audience while running 0% content/100% ads they would already have done so)
Fact-check: This is incorrect. The earth is an oblate spheroid because the equatorial axis and the polar axis do not match in length.
:D
But, to your point I am hard pressed to find a satire or comedy sight that does not represent themselves as such, because the libel fear.