Fact-checking has to go where misinformation actually spreads
We need more trusted intermediaries, shareable formats, and repeated contact with communities that may never visit a fact-checking website
This commentary was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide.
For much of the last decade, fact-checking organizations have measured their value through familiar journalism metrics: articles published, traffic generated, audience numbers, and citations from politicians, academics or other relevant actors in the public debate. These measures made sense when rumors spread via Facebook posts, political falsehoods aired on television and corrections were tagged to individual articles.
But that is no longer the world in which false information circulates. Today, many of the most influential falsehoods move through forwarded voice notes, WhatsApp groups, neighborhood chats, local influencers and informal networks of trust. Some people deliberately profit from disinformation, exploiting platforms that prioritize engagement and revenue.
Related Knowledge Center: Fact-checking and its detractors
Fact-checking has become a familiar tool for political reporters to hold office-holders and candidates accountable. But critics ask if fact-checkers sometimes miss the forest for the trees, and if the practice often struggles with false equivalency the way conventional political coverage does.