Note: The views and opinions expressed in blog/editorial posts are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of Misbar.
Fact-checkers fight fake news. Since there is so much fake news these days, fact-checkers not only have to research claims, but must pick them as well. So, where do these claims come from, and why do fact-checkers pick what we do?
Obviously, we want to check common misconceptions, politicians’ lies, and viral but false claims. This nets us the most views, so we’re going to write about them. Still, there are many other factors that go into deciding what to write about and what not to.
One important factor is whether or not fact-checking that claim is unethical. As journalists, we have a general code of ethics to abide by. The Society of Professional Journalists details an outline of what journalists should or should not do. This includes seemingly simple elements such as “protect anonymous sources” and “don’t plagiarize.”
Some parts of journalism, however, aren’t so simple.
Drawing the line between what is good for the public and what isn’t is difficult for all journalists, including fact-checkers. Is a blind and blissful populace the ideal? Should everyone know everything, even if it’s disturbing? When it comes to fact-checking, an occupation solely focused on finding truth, this question is especially relevant. Ultimately, there are no easy answers. Some may assume that it’s best for us to just delve into the internet and find whatever fake news we can – whether it’s a statement taken out of context on CNN or an outlandish conspiracy theory on a Facebook group. However, while uncovering the truth in any realm might seem best for the public, that isn’t always the case.
We here at Misbar have formed our own take on the public good and fact-checking’s role in contributing to it. The current consensus is that fake news is dangerous because it forces an incorrect perspective on people. Looking at ideas and events within the proper context is essential to forming one’s own opinion. People should be able to pull from the information available and draw their own conclusions from it, regardless of what those conclusions may be. By giving people misinformation, fake news takes that option away from people.
When it comes to picking fact-check topics based on the idea of the public good, we must consider how the article may affect the reader’s opinion. One thing to consider is whether or not we’re giving fake news a platform.
For example, let’s say a fact-checker comes across an image on an obscure anti-vaxxer Facebook group. The image alleges that Doctor Fauci said that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t safe.
So, a fact-checker writes an article debunking the false claim. Taken with context, it’s clear that Fauci was saying that vaccines should be tested because they may not be safe when first developed. The writer categorizes it as “misleading” and publishes the fact-check.
The thing is, though, that there’s a good chance this claim may not have circulated in the first place without our help. It was found it in a dark corner of the internet, and it very well may have stayed there. Someone might see the article and use it in an argument with an anti-vaxxer on Twitter. The argument will gain traction, so more people will read it. Some readers might not read the fact-checker’s article and decide that hey, maybe this anti-vaxxer is right. Maybe they shouldn’t get the vaccine if it’s not perfectly safe.
This is a hypothetical situation, sure. But we have a moral obligation not to give fake news – especially dangerous fake news – a platform to spread. Someone could get sick because of an article. Probably not; but we know of the risks, so we’re responsible for the consequences.
Another ethical quandary fact-checkers face is whether or not the false claim is relevant in context. If we don’t look at how the false claim fits into the bigger picture, fact-checkers aren’t that different that those who take others’ statements out of context. Sometimes, information can be misinformation.
For example, say someone makes a pretty compelling argument for the government subsidizing pizza restaurants. It would make pizza more affordable, which is great because most people love pizza. More pizza joints will appear to take advantage of the new program. Some people don’t agree, however. They would rather the subsidies be given to rice pudding restaurants (fact-check: rice puddings restaurants do actually exist).
Someone fact-checks a small part of the pro-pizza side’s argument, showing that these subsidies wouldn’t go towards making Hawaiian pizzas cheaper. The people who wrote the plan think Hawaiian pizza is gross (a popular albeit wrong opinion, from this writer’s POV). So, the fact-checker says that the subsidies wouldn’t be beneficial to all pizza eaters.
This casts doubt on the pro-pizza side’s argument. Sure, they’re right on everything else, but if one part of it is wrong, maybe all of it is wrong. This could sway the public opinion to the pro rice-pudding side. Now, there’s nothing wrong with rice pudding, but it’s not something you eat every meal. A rice pudding shop on ever street corner sounds like a strange episode of The Good Place.
Sure, this rice pudding vs pizza situation sounds ridiculous, but there’s some real implications. The Green New Deal may have some questionable numbers, but fact-checking small parts of it may cause the public to discredit it entirely. Alternatively, if a conservative senator makes a sound argument against the Green New Deal but gets a few facts and figures wrong, his argument should still be heard even if he’s not entirely correct in the minutiae.
Fact-checkers have a moral responsibility, whether it’s picking topics or investigating claims. Not everyone has the same code of ethics as Misbar does. Some are even willing to use faulty information and questionable sources in their articles under the guise of fact-checking.
When choosing your go-to fact-checking source, always make sure that their methods are not only accurate – but also ethical.
