Running head: FACT CHECKING 1
Student Name
Institutional Affiliations
Course
Date
Fact-Checking in Politics: Relevance and Roles in Journalism and Democracy
Introduction
In the modern world, fact-checking articles have become the most requested in newsrooms, and in this case, the most read content they are producing. Due to the recent development in politics, there have sprung up many groups associated with the growing trend of seeking truth in politics; they include PunditFact, FactCheck, PolitiFact, and FlackCheck. The exercise of fact-checking is done with three possible objectives in mind, and each has a distinct audience it seeks to address. One of them is for the general public to be able to have a better understanding of the candidates and public policy issues by the misinformation being countered. In terms of journalism, to shift the existing culture from covering what was said and be able to move towards enhanced fact-checking. Lastly, fact-checking enables political pundits, news networks and especially politicians, to be held accountable and deter them from issuing erroneous statements.
Fact-checking has become an increasing phenomenon for opponents in politics as a weapon on campaign trails in modern times. For established news outlets like the Washington Post, there has emanated programs such as Truth Teller that has been built around structured data geared towards fact-checking, this is in an effort to address the growing fact that various mistruths are often over and over again repeated. The prototype algorithm does test proclamations against an existing database that contains limitless prior fact-checks, which helps in curtailing significantly the burden of fact-checkers being run by humans.
Fact-Checking and Journalism
There does seem to be an increased impetus for fact-checking from the likes of MacLeans, CNN, Fox News and CBC. While it may appear to be a reaction from the events of presidential elections in the United States last year, history does show that it has been a growing trend for many years in journalism (Nyhan and Reifler 2014). There has been a growing trend in reporting that is moving away from ‘she said/he said’ kind of reporting, that has for decades left a lot of room for facts to be abused by individuals.
The previous style of reporting was more focused on showing both sides of a given debate. Over time, it has made journalists to be accused of not living up to their ordained responsibility to the general public; by taking the easiest way out and doing less in order to get to the bottom life of the truth. In terms of politics, truth has become a controversial issue. In the seeking of truth, things have also turned to be sticky for the journalists, who have in many times have had to counter wraths from politicians (Graves and Glaisyer 2012).
Outcomes of Fact-Checking
Fact-checking is a positive trend in journalism, but how it plays out has become critical, in reality terms. The modern fact-checkers have created problems for the media industry given the hidden ideologies behind the decision to choose which of the statements made by politicians to be checked, and the most dangerous aspect of the whole phenomenon is that, journalists are not immune from having their own ideologies just like everyone else (Kalsnes, 2018). In this regard, there is a tendency to turn a blind eye to falsehoods are much closer home and put more emphasis on falsehoods made by the other side of the divide. Many of the individuals who get bombarded by fact-checkers are not journalists as shown by political scientists that include DJ Flynn, Jason Reifler, Brendan Nyhan, and David Redlawsk, which has therefore led to data being gathered on how individuals react to fact-checks (Nyhan and Reifler 2014).
Reaction of the Population to Political Fact-Checks
In spite the rise in fact-checking in politics, there has been an understanding that people in the United States, view politics as a form of identity. It is very common to hear individuals say that they are either Democrats or Republicans, instead of them saying they did vote for Democrats or Republicans; in this scenario, individuals have their identities tied to politics in the country (Kalsnes, 2018). Therefore, it is very hard to change the way politics is run in the country.
Another important fact of existing politics is that, the general public does filter facts or information, through already existing political lens. In this regards, an analysis or comprehension of information or data is not viewed in terms of whether it is true or false, but in line with how it relates and anchors identity of the individual (Kalsnes, 2018). Fact-checking has its own benefits as continued exposure leads to the people behind the misinformation having to improve their line of logic and argument. However, in terms of overall outlook on politics and the voting population of the country, there is less likelihood of the efforts done in fact-checking making people do be more informed or smarter in terms of politics (Graves and Glaisyer 2012).
The most phenomenon result of fact-checking as seen in the case of Donald Trump is that, it has led to a backfiring effect. In this case, when individuals are provided with critical information that does debunk beliefs that they have held onto falsely, there has been a higher affinity to hold on those false beliefs tightly. A good example of a good fact-checking scene on the American soil and that has been widely researched relates to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The truth of the matter is that there were no such weapons; neither were they found in Iraq, once it was invaded by the United States of America. Findings have shown that even in the event that correct information was provided in order to change the misconception about Iraq had been provided, in regards to the weapons of mass destruction before United States invaded Iraq; it led to conservatives becoming more confident in their acquired misconception. In this case, their conviction of existence of these weapons became much stronger (Nyhan and Reifler 2014).
The tendency of individuals becoming more emboldened in their convictions once confronted with the truth about their misconception has been termed by psychologists as motivated reasoning, which is a very common behavior people do engage in. In order to have a better understanding of the phenomenon, in real life, it does take one doctor to convince an individual he/she is healthy; while on average, it will take an average of four doctors, to convince the concerned individual that they are sick (Nyhan and Reifler 2014).
There is a common belief that people think and act like scientists. In actual sense a human being acts and thinks more like a lawyer. In this regard, instead of taking a careful analysis of all the information at their disposal, or facts for that matter, people always have a conclusion at hand, anchored in their beliefs and values, and conveniently ignore and arrange facts to their liking (Kalsnes 2018). In summary, our version of facts is shaped by our beliefs and values.
There is continued proliferation of opportunities on the growth of fact-checking, how it can be disseminated effectively and new technology tools to enhance the exercise. The continued efficiency in fact-checking will result in perpetrators being more careful before making outrageous claims (Kalsnes 2018). The current fact-checking focuses on television shows, ads, and news content that is online. It does not exist to cover print, radio or mailers with more potent. Television campaigns that have national outreach for now are the easiest to counter-check, the rise of TiVo and micro-targeting makes it very hard for political communications in future, to stick to these distribution channels (Nyhan and Reifler 2014). Behavioral scientists suggest that changing misperceptions is very complex once the targeted individuals have latched onto them. In many cases, attempts to make an amendment on the beliefs that are erroneous do serve to entrench the falsehoods more deeply.
Conclusion
Indeed, the rise and the relevance of fact checking in the modern journalism cannot be downplayed. As part of the ethics governing the journalism conduct, they had a moral duty to base their reports on credible evidence. Therefore, they cannot sit back and report lies to the audience. Most citizens rely on the news from journalist to make their decisions regarding certain aspects of living. This means that fact-checking can help the audience to base their decisions on proven evidence or data rather than hearsay reports from journalists. The pros of fact-checking are much weighty compared to cons in regard to the future of journalism and democracy.
References
Graves, Lucas and Glaisyer, Tom. “The Fact-Checking Universe in Spring 2012: An Overview.” New America Foundation. 2012. Web.
Kalsnes, Bente. “Deciding what’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism” Digital Journalism. Vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 670 – 672. 2018. Web
Nyhan Brendan and Reifler Jason. "The Effect of Fact‐Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on U.S. State Legislators." American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59.no. 3, pp. 628-640. 2014. Web.