Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Judith Brown.
Free Speech is “Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment…valued free speech embraces publication – writing, broadcasting, distributing, recordings…”. The Oxford Dictionary.
Fact checking the fact checkers
Fact checking has always been a function of journalists who check sources and story content to ensure that published news stories are realistic, in order to protect their reputation. This does not mean that news is always accurate or unbiased, as story selection, perspective and external and internal influences inevitably alter the way that information is presented. As documented by the critical political communication literature, journalists have close relationships with governments and powerful organisations and often work in partnership to shape the content of media output. The new fact checking industry, however, introduces a new layer of influence and control over news production and output.
What do fact checkers do?
Fact checkers monitor information that appears in a public space such as an online platform or social media, using a system that has been devised in a particular way, moderating or censoring content that does not meet with their specifications. Fact checkers all over the world are trained to use identical methods. Sometimes they check information that has been sent to them by a government or institution that will have ‘trusted flagger status’ which gives those in power fast access to social media executives, in order to send details of content that challenges their form of ‘truth’. On the internet and social media, tools are used to search text, speech, images, graphics, and videos, using algorithms that identify posts or articles that need human scrutiny and/or action. An example is picking out content that contains certain words for scrutiny and moderation. Often fact check platforms contain an explainer that states that because every item is checked using the same system, and because the platform has no political leanings, then their findings are objective and can be relied upon. Fact checking takes time and hence this is a labour intensive industry.
A typical example is PesaCheck in Africa, that states it uses editorial checklists and production guidelines to create what it calls a transparent process, and uses a standardised methodology for researching and reporting their findings. They state that each fact-check is reviewed and validated by multiple editors to prevent bias. They use multiple sources and references, and collaborate with other fact check teams on verification projects. PesaCheck however does not start with an open mind, but accepts certain information provided by governments, corporations or official bodies as beyond scrutiny. For example, their website states they tackle ‘climate denialism’ and during the Covid-19 pandemic closely followed WHO guidelines, even though these two areas have prominent scientists whose dissenting views are worthy of debate, whether they are correct or not. On their website PesaCheck describes views that differ from their own as ‘persistent conspiracy theories’ or ‘toxic speech’. Other fact check platforms use similar methods and phraseology.
After a post is verified by fact checking platforms, it is defined as correct (true), partly correct, or incorrect (false); individual platforms have different methods of labelling, such as colours or indicators. If they fact check on behalf of a social media company, their activities will affect posts on that platform. Posts that do not meet with their expectations are censored, which fact checkers describe as ‘moderating’ content. This may mean the post is removed, or made more difficult to share, has its visibility lowered, or a warning banner is attached. In the industry, this is called ‘debunking’. People who post such content often have their accounts restricted, for example, they may be told that their posts will have a lower profile, or they may face a temporary or permanent ban.
This has no bearing on the quality of the item posted, an example being a fully checked news item published in the British Media Journal (BMJ). A whistleblower from Pfizer noted irregularities in the Pfizer vaccine trials, and had been unable to get Pfizer or the regulatory authorities to take action. She documented evidence which she passed to the BMJ, who checked her documents and when satisfied that that the whistleblower’s account was accurate, they published it as a news story. The BMJ story was shared on Facebook, where it was fact checked by an American fact check platform, Lead Stories, who described the article as “Missing Context” and “…may mislead people”. Some Facebook users who shared the post were told to remove it, and threatened that their later posts would be made less visible if they did not do so. When talking to BMJ, Lead Stories stated that they had checked the story with Pfizer, who had given a different account of the Pfizer drug trial. Lead Stories do not give the reasons why they accepted Pfizer’s statement as ‘truth’ and the BMJ news item as ‘misleading’. This is particularly concerning as Pfizer has a history of making false claims, for example, it was fined $2.3 billion in 2009 for false marketing, the largest healthcare fine in history.
How extensive is the Fact Checking Industry?
A preliminary examination found about 500 active fact check platforms worldwide, around half linked to media outlets. Some have specialities such as media personalities, health or climate. Independent (non-media) platforms’ focus is to review content on social media and internet sites. Fact checking occurs in European, Asian and African languages, including minority languages for hard to reach communities. Over 200 hundred support organisations were also uncovered, including tech companies that produce fact check tools, NGOs, journalists associations, and networking organisations. This includes the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), part of the Poynter institute in Florida, that acts as a professional body and since 2017 has been verifying signatures of fact check platforms that comply with its system of fact checking, as outlined in its Code of Principles. Whilst it is commendable for journalists and fact checkers to have a professional standard, looking at the website of the Poynter Institute, content that is published there follows mainstream Western narratives on hot button issues, such as climate and health. In the midst of the 2023/4 Israeli bombardment on Gaza, in which nearly two million Palestinians were displaced, tens of thousands killed, and an investigation for genocide was being undertaken by the International Court of Justice, Poynter described the reporting of the news from Gaza as a ‘Pallywood’, a play on the words Palestinian and Hollywood, stating that the Palestinians were exaggerating their casualties and acting, with Poynter strongly following the lines of the US and Israeli governments.
The new systems of fact checking extends across all media forms; newspapers, radio, television, online news; online games; social media; and encrypted platforms.
The role of universities – using the Europe as an example.
Universities also play an important role in the new fact checking industry, as is demonstrated in Europe by the extensive involvement of universities in the anti-disinformation network. In Europe twelve non-governmental organisations (NGOs) supporting fact checking were found that are funded by the EU, European Commission or the Council of Europe; these involved universities, AI companies, and fact check platforms. 83 universities in 31 European countries were named as participating in these projects.
Some are extensive. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) has a branch in every EU country and fourteen hubs were found. Its aims are to map all fact check platforms; coordinate research; build a portal for everyone to check and coordinate information; develop a framework for data collection; and support for public authorities. Other EU funded organisations perform tasks such as setting EU fact checking standards, designing fact check tools, creating content, distributing data, or coordinating university journalism departments.
Universities sometimes have specific skills, such as Aarhus University’s Data Analysis lab, or Sheffield University’s Natural Speech Processing Lab, or Cambridge University’s Social Decision-making Lab, part of the psychology department. The size and extent of EU and government funding of the fact checking industry, including university departments, questions whether these institutions operate in the interests of governments, or of the people. It has been revealed that American universities play a similarly nefarious role in fact checking in the Twitter files investigations.
These investigations began when the ownership of Twitter (now X) changed. Extensive correspondence with governments, universities, and social media was found. Stanford University’s Internet Observatory (SIO) is a good example of censorship functions within academia. One action was to partner with big tech and government to combat what was called ‘anti-vaccine information’. They flagged posts with true content or with content that was worthy of debate, and these were actioned, or moderated. For example, they flagged ‘content that is not clearly mis or disinformation, but it may be malinformation’, including the suppression of accurate information that challenged government narratives. Since 2024 after evidence of SOI censorship was revealed, the SOI has been subject to legal actions, and its future in is doubt.
Where does all the money come from?
According to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), few fact check platforms are independent of external funders although some small platforms state their work is done by volunteers without cost. Disclosed grants and donations described on the websites of fact check platforms worldwide are usually from large institutions associated with Western governments; large Western foundations or trusts; EU, American, European and UK governments; large media corporates; Google; Meta; IFCN; or UN departments. Earned income is usually from large corporates, such as Google or Meta, for third party fact checking or training activities. The sums involved are significant. For example, the British fact check platform Full Fact received just under five hundred thousand pounds from Facebook, and around two hundred thousand pounds from Google in one year; whilst IFCN received a grant of $13.2 million US dollars from Google to cover a five year period. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, subcontracts fact checking in 119 countries, with 253 contracts for its third party fact checking program found in May 2023. Facebook only accepts IFCN verified signatories as fact check partners, giving a lucrative initiative for fact check platforms to comply with IFCN’s system.
Some fact check platforms earn income from designing fact check tools, such as a US two million dollar grant to Africa Check from Google . Tools include products that monitor text to find target words or phrases; turn spoken words into text for analysis; predict current and future trends by monitoring conversations online and offline; analyse visual images; identify whether text has been altered; and check whether stories, statements or pictures have been used previously.
Many independent fact check platforms also earn income from media literacy and fact check courses in association with Google or Meta. Their main targets are children, students and journalists although courses may be offered more widely.
Fact check courses include the use of fact check tools, and methodology. Methodology includes ‘Reading upstream’, e.g., looking for the source of the material that is being verified,, and ‘lateral reading’, e.g., finding out more information about the author/s of the content that is being checked. One of the problems with this system is that many of the organisations and persons who dissent from mainstream opinions, however ethical and highly qualified, are already smeared by fact checkers. Negative opinions of dissenters are therefore likely to be found on internet searches, hence narratives published by unfairly smeared actors are likely to be censored by trained fact checkers, or rejected by members of the public who have undertaken media literacy training.
How much of a problem is all this fact checking?
The fact check industry claims it counters disinformation, which they describe as a growing problem “The disinformation campaigns we’ve seen proliferate online are becoming well-oiled machines, getting stronger, pivoting faster, and delving deeper”. In fact, statistics are rarely shown on any fact check platforms to demonstrate the alleged growth, and there are few studies to ascertain the parties who create disinformation. More precisely, there Is already prima facie evidence that fact checking involves suppression of legitimate opinions.
Investigations into various governments’ support of fact checking include Big Brother Watch’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ report, the Twitter files and subsequent investigations also here, an investigation by McEvoy and Curtis, and statements made on the website of Logically, a for-profit fact check platform. It is clear that American, British and other governments are directly and generously funding social media and fact check platforms to modify content in line with their preferences. Fact checkers have been accused of illegally hacking sites and distorting information obtained to smear those with different opinions; demonetarising activities, and removing accounts.
The fact check industry is not a covert industry, but considering the reach of its influence, it keeps a very low profile, with most citizens being unaware of its existence, or of its size. It is hard to understand how smearing, restricting and censoring thoughtful and knowledgeable voices can lead to a strengthening of democracy or online safety.
Although fact checkers claim independence, this claim is unlikely when they are totally dependent on their funders. Although some platforms attract small individual donations, the sums raised are not significant. Wealthy funders who donate to the fact checking industry will only do so if the donation serves their own interests. Governments will only fund for content moderation that meets with their own preferences. Funders may or may not give top down directives but the fact check industry would collapse without financial assistance, and this creates an ethos within each organisation. This inevitably determines the direction of travel. When third party fact check platforms are contracted to Facebook, Meta outlines its requirements clearly; for example during 2020/2023 one requirement was to remove posts that questioned Covid-19 policies. Only one platform in the Netherlands was found that resigned from Facebook because of restrictions on its freedom. Hence, for an industry dependent on the wealthy and powerful for their survival, it is likely that fact checking activities favour the preferences of their donors and patrons.
Fact checkers’ funding outside Europe and the USA is also dominated by Western monies. Two governments, India and Georgia, have openly expressed concern relating to Western influences via fact checking within their national boundaries, and have attempted restrictive measures. Taxpayers in Westen countries such as USA and Europe are not just funding censorship within their own boundaries, but they are funding the same restrictions on freedom of expression across all continents.
Additionally, there can be no university research without funding. Researchers in academic institutions have to keep raising money to continue with their work, and the reputation and status of a university department is dependent on its ability to attract funders. If a university is offered government money to investigate ‘disinformation’ the fact that governments historically have created most disinformation does not detract a university from accepting funds. Realistically, it is unlikely that in such a scenario research conclusions and recommendations would contradict the wishes of any government sponsor, and if it did, future funding would dry up.
Censorship policies are often sugar-coated by legislators, who describe such activities as protecting the vulnerable. Many activities that control information in Europe and UK are now lawful due to new legislation, but this does not equate to democracy. People may agree that they would like a safe online space, free and fair elections, and restriction of ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ without equating this to censorship. The fact check industry uses this as justification for their work, and governments view this as approval for legislation that legalises censorship. After examining the activities of the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex’ these concepts are not as fair as many believe. Most people want to have and share their own opinions without censorship, and to be able to receive unabridged information from diverse sources and make judgements for themselves. People do not want to be deceived. Many members of the public may see these new legal restrictions as necessary for others rather than themselves, and have not considered that free speech, even speech that you disagree with, is an essential pillar of democracy. People need accurate and unbiased information about the activities of their governments and corporations in order to fully participate in the democratic process. This is the crucial factor that governments and the fact check industry have ignored and have overridden in their efforts to control information.
Conclusion.
Fact checking does not produce a product and is entirely dependent on donations, or income earned from third-party fact checking contracts offered by social media corporations, or from training and development of tools that are also funded by the same social media giants.
The extent of the fact check industry and the enormous sums that are provided by the wealthy and powerful to support it, explains why Shellenberger named this ‘The Industrial Censorship Complex’. Fact checkers – from universities, fact check platforms, NGOs and tech companies, have indeed become the ones who are employed to decide what is true, what is false, and who and what has to be excluded from public debate. This interference with free expression has reached concerning proportions, as without such freedoms we will no longer live in a democratic society.