Fact-checking: How To Determine What Is True

Fact-checking is the process of verifying the factual accuracy of a given report or statement. It seems obvious but its a process many people overlook. The main field this is used in is journalism to filter through inaccurate content and keep it from being published. It can be internal, done in-house by the publisher, or external, where the text is analyzed by a third party. Fact-checking is why highly-regarded journals are relatively reliable; it can correct perceptions among the public and keep politicians from spreading misleading claims.

The problem comes when corrections decay. This may be because of incentives from elites who want less accurate claims that serve their needs published. It could also be due to human biases in the quill of the checker. That’s for print media. We face a larger issue when examining social and mainstream media however. Because anybody can post anything from anywhere at anytime, fact-checking is no longer required to disseminate information to the wider public. Hence conspiracy theories and a variety of misinformation spread like wildfire nowadays. And although some creators are wary of this and do their research before posting content, the majority are not.

The thing is that fact-checkers are people. People make mistakes. Thus fact-checking can only have as significant an impact as how impartial the fact-checker is. Their preexisting beliefs, ideology, preferences, and knowledge affect the effectiveness of the process. So the best solution seems to (a) consume trusted sources and (b) become sort of fact-checkers ourselves. A great way of doing this is known as lateral research: getting an overview of a topic or statement from lots of sources without digging deeply into one (e.g. reverse image searches, encyclopedias, search engines, social media platforms, internet archives). Ironically, the international fact-checking day is April 2. April 1 is a day for fools, April 2 is a day for facts.

Real-world examples of fact-checking:

• Journalism and Media: during an election, fact-checking organizations verify claims made by political candidates. These organizations report and confirm, debunk, or clarify their statements to help voters make informed decisions.

• Social Media: a social media post makes a controversial health claim and goes viral. Fact-checkers jump on the issue and investigate the claim by consulting medical experts, scientific studies, and official health guidelines. They then publish their findings to correct the misinformation and nobody is harmed. This is, of course, what would happen ideally. In the real world, the fake news spreads and most people get a slice of reality only when its too late.

• Academic Research: a new study makes groundbreaking claims about climate change. Peer review and subsequent fact-checking by independent researchers verify or discard the study’s methodology and conclusions before the findings are widely accepted. This is how science is born.

• Consumer Products: a company advertises its products and services as “science-based” to improved health. Regulatory bodies and/or consumer advocacy groups fact-check these claims. They review clinical trial data and independent studies to see if the offer works as advertised. Most of the time it does not, but by then the firm has made its fair share of sales.

How you can use fact-checking as a mental model: (1) be a skeptic — approach claims, especially extreme ones, with a critical mindset, “What sources back this up? Is this verified?”; (2) do a shallow dive — use reputable fact-checking sites, databases, and lateral research to quickly investigate how credible the conclusions are; (3) cross-reference data — look for multiple sources that parrot the same results, as this would make the claim more credible; (4) fact not fiction — focus on empirical data and verifiable facts instead of opinions and anecdotal evidence; (5) think in context — understand what potential biases could weigh into the presentation of the information, such as a social media post framed to get you to buy something; (6) keep playing the game — always seek out reliable sources and revise your understanding based on objective evidence, not subjective opinion.