“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts,” a notable quote from the late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, encapsulates the essence of truth in the discourse of public information.
However, this sentiment feels increasingly outdated in light of Meta’s recent decision to discontinue its fact-checking program on prominent social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. This shift raises concerns about the implications for an industry that has been dedicated to providing clarity and ensuring factual integrity.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, shared this announcement this week, which many in the news verification community interpret as a nod to president-elect Donald Trump. This move seems to echo the earlier days of Trump’s first term, where the term “alternative facts” gained popularity.
The new approach Meta is adopting will pivot towards a “community notes” system, akin to X’s methodology. This system relies on users to collectively identify and correct misinformation independently. This transformation resembles a return to more ambiguous forms of journalism, where the focus is shifted from professional fact-checking to a landscape dominated by public opinion, where the loudest voices often dictate the narrative.
This moment marks a significant turning point for the fact-checking sector, whose power and influence may see a significant decline as Trump begins his second term.
Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, highlighted that in the short run, this transition could be detrimental to those seeking accurate information on social media. Her organization, which started with around 50 members in 2015, has now grown to 170, though many are facing potential layoffs or could even close due to Meta’s recent changes. Holan expressed uncertainty regarding the long-term implications of these shifts in the media landscape.
Fact-checking, though a relatively new phenomenon, has become an essential feature of modern journalism. Emerging as a response to the inadequacies of “he said-she said” reporting, this practice took form about three decades ago, with organizations like FactCheck.org launching in 2003 and PolitiFact in 2007—a venture initiated by Bill Adair from the Tampa Bay Times. PolitiFact garnered notable recognition when it received a Pulitzer Prize for its rigorous fact-checking during the 2008 campaign season, holding politicians accountable for misleading statements that conventional reporters often hesitated to challenge.
However, the rise of political resistance against fact-checkers came swiftly, particularly from certain Republican circles who felt that this practice was biased against them. Adair mentioned that Trump’s influence has amplified an existing trend of skepticism towards fact-checkers.
While some concerns from conservatives regarding potential biases in fact-checking are valid, there are also instances of politicians resisting accountability when confronted with their misleading statements. This has led to a perception that those who engage in fact-checking are establishing themselves as the ultimate authority on truth.
Vexingly, labeling particular statements—like designating a claim as “pants on fire”—might attract attention, but can also incite resentment among those who feel unfairly treated. Holan rejected the notion that fact-checking is inherently biased, stating that criticism often arises from those who wish to exaggerate or misrepresent facts without opposition.
Despite ongoing skepticism, public demand for trustworthy information remains high. A survey conducted by the Poynter Institute revealed that 70% of Republicans perceive fact-checkers as biased; conversely, a similar percentage of Democrats view them as impartial. However, a broader survey from last year indicated that 52% of Americans struggle to discern the truthfulness of information regarding elections, illustrating a significant need for reliable sources.
The evolving political narrative surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection serves as a reminder of the dangers stemming from unchecked falsehoods. In a contemporary discussion on NewsBusters.org, Tim Graham observed that during the first nine months of 2024, PolitiFact identified “mostly false” claims from Republican officials 88 times, compared to merely 31 instances for Democrats. Graham suggests that this disparity undermines the notion of PolitiFact’s impartiality.
Yet, the question remains whether this constitutes bias or simply a rigorous effort to verify facts. Adair, now unafraid to state his position, argues in his new book, “Beyond the Big Lie: The Epidemic of Political Lying, Why Republicans Do it More, and How it Could Burn Down Our Democracy,” that Trump is unparalleled when it comes to political dishonesty.
Tensions surrounding fact-checking were particularly evident during the recent presidential campaign, with Trump’s team expressing outrage at ABC News for highlighting his falsehoods during a debate with Kamala Harris. With Trump’s anticipated second term turning Meta’s tides, similar to how Elon Musk curtailed independent fact-checking on X, the landscape is shifting dramatically.
The absence of a formal fact-checking process risks depriving users of critical exposure to reliable information. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, founder of FactCheck.org, stresses that effective fact-checking serves to reach audiences who are already inclined to seek verified information.
Therefore, the ability of fact-checking to flourish in its current form could require notable conservative figures to vocalize their commitment to truth, as exemplified by Hayes’ outlet, The Dispatch, underlining the importance of diligent fact-checking. Graham offers a poignant reminder that humility is essential in all discussions regarding media trust.
