The traditional media, as you say, check facts all the time and journalists often rely on academics for help with that. But because the news is so fast-moving in this 24/7 news cycle, stories can rush by or develop quickly and sometimes there is not enough time for journalists to check the accuracy of statements as thoroughly as they might have in the past. But there have been a few statements we have considered checking that have been looked at by the established news sites, so we have tended to leave those alone. Due to our review process, we can’t do instant checks—they tend to take a day or two—so if the story is really a one-day wonder, we avoid it.

In this era, we in the media have to think seriously about collaborating with other players because we don’t have the resources we once did. Collaborating with academics make sense in some circumstances. Journalists have particular skills that academics don’t have. We tend to be finely tuned to the news, and we are able to edit stories to ensure they make sense to a non-expert reader. The academics bring enormous and detailed knowledge. I think that journalists and academics working together are potentially better than either of us would be working alone.

So far, the academics have particularly added value on complex issues, where claims and counter-claims can get thrown about and where “facts” are used to argue for a policy position in a way that’s distorted. Manufacturing and how we compare internationally. Asylum seeker policy. Education policy. Even elections and voting behavior—we did one on whether swinging voters were “disengaged” with politics.

I’m also intrigued by the blind peer review model and the move away from ratings scales. Both should make the information on the site more credible to skeptics who often object to ratings or the omniscient voice often used in fact-checking, but they are also more transparent in acknowledging the ambiguity and subjectivity that factcheckers often encounter in practice. Do you think this undermines the authority of the site or strengthens it?

We’ll see. The peer review has definitely added authority, but it isn’t always easy. We’ve had instances where the reviewer disagrees to some extent with the author, and we’ve taken the concerns back to the author who has changed the factcheck slightly—that’s how it’s supposed to work, I guess. The reviewer doesn’t just tick off the check; they often emphasize something different or raise a new point. Regarding ratings, I wasn’t sure we had made the right decision, and I asked readers via Twitter and comments to let us know what they thought about it. So far, the feedback has been good. People who are interested in politics or particular issues don’t seem to need or want a one- or two-word rating about something and, as I said, we do have a Verdict, which is usually one or two lines. It gets back to the purpose of factchecking.

We are not thinking of this as something for politicians or political insiders or journalists. We are trying to be a site for voters, providing information they might find useful. Our opening question to ourselves when we think about whether to check a statement is: “I wonder if that’s true?” We have all wondered that, but I don’t necessarily want someone to tell me something is literally true if the real question is whether the conclusion the politician is drawing from the factual assertion is invalid. So it depends on the purpose of factchecking. We are learning as we go about its strengths and weaknesses, what factchecking can do, and what it can’t.

One last question—the rise of factchecking here in the US is in part a response to frustrations with the “objective” model of news reporting, which in practice often leads journalists from mainstream outlets to refuse to arbitrate between competing factual claims about controversial issues. To what extent does a similar critique apply in Australia and do you think it has played an important role in motivating the growth of factchecking there?

It hasn’t been cited as a key reason for factchecking sites here. Our debates around journalism are influenced by US debates, and there has certainly been discussion about “false balance” and “the view from nowhere.” Journalism here is completely in flux, and established and new media are trying new things, which is heartening. “Objectivity” is certainly under challenge, and has been for many years, yet there is controversy about the merging of news and opinion, too. Social media has pulled up professional journalists for errors and bias, and insisted on accountability, but it has also helped fan a “perpetual outrage” style of political debate in Australia. I hope factchecking sites are about a hunger for substance. There is ample evidence that people are disgruntled with the poll-driven, spin-driven, personality-driven style of political reporting. Factchecking sites may be one way to help address that.

TAGS: , , , ,

Brendan Nyhan is an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College. He blogs at brendan-nyhan.com and tweets @BrendanNyhan.