Since the announcement in January that Meta was suspending its fact-checking programme in the United States, news organisations have wondered what that means for their readers and the industry in general.

During this week’s Webinar, Amalie Nash, lead of the INMA Newsroom Transformation Initiative, moderated a discussion about the future of fact-checking in an increasingly challenging and polarised media landscape.

“Obviously, fact-checking has been around a lot longer than Facebook,” Nash said. “But social media platforms often partnered with the likes of PolitiFact, USA Today, and others in the field … to help stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation.”

With those guardrails either removed or disappearing, Nash said it was “a good time to step back” and address vital questions about the importance of fact-checking and how news organisations should approach it.

Nash noted that because trust in fact-checking falls along partisan lines — in 2019, an AP poll found 70% of Republicans in the United States thought fact-checkers were “one-sided”—it’s essential to understand the fact-checking process.

To dive deeper into the topic, Nash was joined by Angie Drobnic Holan, director of Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and Aaron Sharockman, executive director of PolitiFact.

Fighting misinformation with the IFCN

Holan explained that the IFCN’s mission is to combat misinformation. Since launching in 2016 with 35 fact-checkers in 27 countries, it has grown to encompass 170 fact-checking organisations across more than 80 countries. Memberships range from large newsrooms like The Washington Post to small nonprofit fact-checking teams.

“There are lots of challenges and opportunities in fact-checking,” she said, explaining that “fact-checking fills a need for high-quality information.” Over the years, the IFCN has streamlined the process, but its mission remains to fight against “the speed and volume of misinformation, political polarisation, and accusations of bias.”

What sets the IFCN apart from other organisations — and will help it navigate the road ahead — is its Code of Principles, which calls for ethical and transparent fact-checking. Those principles are:

1. Non-partisanship and fairness.
2. Transparency of sources.
3. Transparency of funding and organisation.
4. Transparency of methodology.
5. An open and honest corrections policy.

“When we have these principles, the public tends to find them very compelling — at least the fair-minded public,” Holan said. However, not everyone will accept facts, regardless of how much evidence or documentation is provided.

“Some audience members are so locked into their political frameworks that they’re really not interested in considering facts and evidence,” she said.

Those principles help the IFCN respond to accusations of bias or misinformation, as the organisation is transparent about its methods and is willing to share its sources.

In light of Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking programme, Holan emphasised the critical need for fact-checking and said that she believes tech platforms will revisit fact-checking partnerships in the future: “The Meta programme is ending in the U.S., but we believe these programmes are worthwhile and we do believe we will see them return at some point.”

The power of PolitiFact

Sharockman shared PolitiFact’s core mission: to provide the public with clear, accurate, and accessible fact-based journalism. He emphasised the shift from simply reporting multiple perspectives to actively assessing the truthfulness of claims, helping readers make informed decisions.

“Fox News’s longtime slogan has been, ‘We report, you decide.’ And I think that’s wrong,” Sharockman said. In reality, he added, “Good journalism is giving people accurate information, telling them what’s true. Our role is not to tell them what to believe, but it’s to give them access to the best information so they can make the best decisions for themselves.”

PolitiFact’s approach revolves around its Truth-O-Meter, a rating system that classifies claims based on how much truth they contain. While not a scientific instrument, it provides a structured, repeatable methodology to assess the accuracy of statements, ensuring consistency and transparency. The truth rating ranges from “Pants on Fire” to “True,” with multiple ratings in between.

Each day, PolitiFact teams look at the top stories, then decide which ones to zero in on and “tell those stories through the lens of fact-checking.” Qualifying criteria include being something the world is wondering about and having a fact worth checking and understanding.

In just over 17 years, PolitiFact has conducted nearly 30,000 fact checks, and across that effort, it has created a process that removes bias and is “authoritative and correct.” To do that, it turns to as many primary sources and experts as it can for every fact check.

“We then use experts, outside experts, independent experts, primary sources, whenever possible; all named, all listed with our sources and our independent reporting.”

One interesting part of the process is that while the reporters working on it recommend a rating or a verdict, they don’t have the final say. A group of three editors, who “essentially act as a jury,” consider both the historical fact checks and the evidence provided in the fact being checked. Then, they reach a decision, which Sharockman said is unanimous “eight out of 10 times.”

Even an “easy” fact check can take a day or two to complete; some have taken weeks because of their complexity. That makes it critical to pick the right topics:  

“You don’t want to pick gotchas or things that seem trivial at the moment. You want to be looking at claims and narratives that you think are important and that your audiences are really interested in,” Sharockman said. “Be cautious and thoughtful about what you pick.”

A new era for social media

Having been part of Facebook’s fact-checking programme since December 2016, PolitiFact was one of the original five partners in the United States whose work has now gone global.

Sharockman said Meta’s decision to withdraw from the initiative presents challenges as well as “a great opportunity to rethink what we are as fact-checkers and how we present our information.” Sharockman speculated that Meta may eventually discontinue the programme in other regions as well, making it essential for fact-checkers to adapt and find new platforms to distribute their work. 

“That means thinking more about different platforms where people are getting their information today, whether it’s Threads or Blue Sky or Truth Social or TikTok or Snapchat,” he said. “It enables us to really get above the dance floor, which would be the Meta programme, and look on the balcony and see everything that is going on and look at the entire landscape of online misinformation and tell more stories about why you’re seeing what you’re seeing, how it’s spreading, who’s spreading it, and why. And so I’m excited about that.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .