“Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but not their own facts,” is a famous quote from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that resonates now more than ever. This is particularly poignant in light of Meta’s recent decision to dismantle its fact-checking operations across platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, raising important questions about the future of truth-seeking in the realm of social media.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, revealed this shift earlier this week. Observers in the media verification field interpreted this move as a nod towards Donald Trump, who popularized the term “alternative facts” during his presidency. Instead of using traditional fact-checking methods, Meta will implement a “community notes” approach, a model where users are entrusted with correcting misinformation on the platform. This system resembles the social media platform X, implying a regression to a form of “he said-she said” journalism, where it falls upon participants in political debates to challenge inaccuracies rather than journalists. Moreover, it suggests that the most compelling narratives may overshadow factual accuracy in gaining prominence online.
This pivot arrives at a critical juncture for the fact-checking industry, which faces diminished power as Trump embarks on his second term. “Currently, this is troubling news for anyone seeking reliable and truthful information on social media,” stated Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network. Her organization started with only 50 members in 2015, but that figure has ballooned to 170. However, many of these organizations now confront staffing reductions and potential closures due to Meta’s recent changes. “Moving forward, though, the implications of this shift remain unclear,” added Holan.
The practice of fact-checking emerged around three decades ago as a necessary counter to often simplistic “he said-she said” reports and to monitor claims in political advertising. FactCheck.org was founded in 2003 to support journalists, followed by PolitiFact in 2007, which became well-known for holding politicians accountable for misleading statements and received a Pulitzer Prize for its 2008 election coverage. PolitiFact shone a light on the challenges reporters face when their sources may not always be truthful.
However, since around 2012, fact-checkers have come under fire, especially from Republican circles skeptical of perceived bias. This skepticism has been partly fueled by instances of error within the fact-checking community, alongside a reluctance by some politicians to accept accountability for their own misleading statements. Steve Hayes, CEO of the center-right outlet The Dispatch, noted that skepticism regarding fact-checkers has emerged from both their mistakes and a general unwillingness to accept scrutiny.
Labeling false statements can unintentionally aggravate tensions; catchy terms like “pants on fire” might grab attention but also provoke backlash. Holan counters the suggestion of bias among fact-checkers by asserting that criticisms often come from those who want to exaggerate without facing rebuttal.
Republican distrust of fact-checkers remains prevalent. A 2019 survey by Poynter Institute revealed that 70% of Republicans considered fact-checking efforts to be biased, while a similar percentage of Democrats viewed them as impartial. While Poynter has not revisited this question, it was noted that over half of Americans struggle to discern the truth in election-related information. This fact reflects a public desire for clarity amidst a sea of misinformation, heavily highlighted by the prevailing narratives surrounding events like the January 6 insurrection.
In a recent analysis on NewsBusters.org, Tim Graham pointed out that in early 2024, PolitiFact identified Republican officials as “mostly false” 88 times, compared to just 31 times for Democrats, arguing this illustrates an inherent bias dismissing the platform’s claims of neutrality. The key question being raised is whether this represents bias or simply an accurate accounting of facts.
Adair, the founder of PolitiFact, has more confidently embraced the premise of 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.” He affirms that Trump has set a precedent for political dishonesty, taking advantage of the recent backlash against fact-checking, encouraging others to follow suit in spreading falsehoods.
Tensions revolving around fact-checking surfaced during the recent presidential debates, where Trump’s camp expressed frustration with ABC News for legitimately fact-checking his statements. With Trump’s imminent return to office, Meta’s environment has drastically shifted. The trend reflects a larger move towards reducing independent fact-checking, especially under the ownership of X, where, similarly, traditional forms of truth monitoring are being curtailed, adding to concerns about misinformation online.
Fact-checking is essential, yet it typically influences an audience that is already skeptical and knowledgeable. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson from the University of Pennsylvania points out, effective fact-checking tends to be less visible to those who predominantly consume misinformation. While some believe that various savvy social media users could mitigate misinformation, Adair suggests that for fact-checking to thrive as a critical component of journalism, it will require prominent figures from within the Republican party to vocally endorse the importance of truth-dedicated initiatives. Hayes’ The Dispatch has been recognized for its comprehensive fact-checking approach within the conservative spectrum.
In contrast, Graham provides a pointed perspective, asserting that media discussions would greatly benefit from a sense of humility amidst these ongoing debates over trust and accuracy.
