Spotting the harmful needles in the haystack: How fact-checkers select what to check
In July, the London-based fact-checking organization Full Fact used artificial intelligence tools to scan public debate in media and online. They identified an average of 240,437 pieces of content circulating each day that would be possible, for Full Fact or one of a dozen other fact-checking organizations that use its tools, to fact-check.
Of course, not all false claims are of equal importance. Again, using AI tools, Full Fact was able to eliminate more than 99% of those as neither relevant nor important for the organization to check — being opinions, predictions, repeated claims or on so abstract a topic as to have little chance to have an impact.
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.