Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
I started fact-checking Ireland’s public debate at the beginning of February last year, as part of TheJournal.ie‘s general election coverage.
After a positive response from readers, FactCheck became the Republic of Ireland’s first and only fully dedicated fact-checking service, as it remains today.
What I didn’t know then is that the ensuing 10 months would represent one of the most tumultuous years in living memory for politics, the news media, and even the concept of truth itself.
Here’s what I learned from that experience, and how I believe we can all take some simple steps to improve the health of our public debate in 2017.
1. Fact checks can have an impact
Recent research by American academics found that people exposed to fact checks in an experimental scenario ended up with a higher level of accuracy in their beliefs than those exposed to placebo (non-fact check) articles.
Another study from last year found that this ability of readers to “heed facts” was not significantly impacted by their pre-existing political affiliations.
So wherever you are in the world, find your local fact-checking organisations (map here), follow them on social media, and read and share what they publish. It really can work.
2. No side has a monopoly on honesty and accuracy
I promise you. And no one party, group or ideology is uniquely prone to inaccuracy.
And no, falsehood and exaggeration are not tendencies that are linked with only certain sets of beliefs, certain political philosophies, or certain affiliations.
They are human tendencies, to which all sides, in every debate, are prone. So if truthfulness in public debate really is what we value most, we should stop throwing stones in glass houses.
3. Not every false claim is a lie
And not everyone who makes one is a liar.
More often than you might think, people make honest mistakes. (Including FactCheck). They use the right source, but the wrong information. Or the right kind of information, but from a questionable source.
Of course there are lies in public debate. Just as surely as there are sincere errors and perfectly true statements. But before we condemn someone as a “liar”, we should ask ourselves these questions:
If we want healthy public debate, we should emphasise accuracy (in ourselves and others), but avoid unfair and unfounded attacks on character.
4. “Getting it right” is not the same thing as “being right”
Accurately stating a fact doesn’t mean you’re right on the broader issue. And making a false claim doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
Over the past year writing articles for TheJournal.ie‘s FactCheck, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon, repeated again and again. Here’s how it typically happens:
They do all this rather than simply accepting that the deputy didn’t have her facts straight on the roundabouts, but arguing that she’s still right to call for free hot drinks for educators.
Meanwhile, some opponents of the “tea for teachers” policy point to the fact check as definitive proof that our TD is wrong on the bigger issue.
Of course she got this detail wrong, they argue, because she has the entire policy wrong.
This equation of “getting it right” and “being right” is quite common, but it’s a serious problem for a few reasons.
First, anyone who’s ever had an argument with a partner or sibling or friend knows well that it’s perfectly possible, and very common, to have your facts straight, but still be wrong on the bigger issues (or vice versa).
Second, you’re setting an intellectual trap for yourself. If you present a link between being accurate in specific instances and being right on issues, what happens when someone from your side makes a false claim?
Or when one of your opponents gets their facts right? What does this mean for your view of them, the facts, and the credibility of the fact-checkers you previously used to advance your argument?
And finally, it’s damaging to public debate. When fact checks are selectively commended or attacked purely to advance political or ideological causes, this undermines everyone’s credibility.
And when “getting it right” and “being right” are equated – when the stakes are unnecessarily increased in this way – it makes it even less likely that politicians and other public figures will publicly acknowledge their factual errors, even while reiterating their broader arguments.
This corrodes trust and good faith in public debate, so this year, we should try to be more confident in our principles and not make every mistake, however trivial, a hill to die on.
Which brings us to the next point…
5. Politicians and public figures almost never admit their mistakes – they should do it more, but we should make it easier for them
TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck has examined more than 160 factual claims since last February. Many of them involved politicians, naturally, but in only two instances did an Irish politician admit they had made an error – Richard Bruton and Willie O’Dea.
An elected official accepting they made a factual error could help restore their credibility, somewhat ironically. And it adds, once again, to the degree of trust and good faith in our public debate. It helps correct the public record.
Politicians should do it – and be asked to do it – far more often. But when they do, the rest of us should publicly acknowledge them for it.
It’s also in our power to make it easier for them to admit when they get it wrong.
Too often, the cost of being found to have made a false claim is: immediately being labelled a liar (see Point 3), having your broader argument unfairly and irrationally dismissed (see Point 4), or being dragged into a bout of partisan mud-slinging (see Point 2).
If we can wean ourselves off these bad habits, we can lower the cost for politicians of admitting their mistakes, and thus add to the foundation of good faith in public debate.
Even so, political leaders and influential public figures should still do the right thing and publicly accept that they’ve said something untrue, even if it hurts them personally.
6. Not every news article that includes errors, or that you don’t like, is “fake news”
And we should stop using that term to describe almost everything.
Lack of accuracy, context and balance in news is, of course, a problem, as it always has been.
But what is generally referred to as “fake news” is fundamentally different.
It involves the intentional invention and fabrication of entire stories, often crafted to provoke as much shock or disgust or confirmation of biases as possible, in order to foster social media virality, with the ultimate aim of making advertising money for its creators.
Just last week, a long-established, major US television news network (CNN) broadcast a story about a purported intelligence report including explosive allegations about US President-Elect Donald Trump.
It was purportedly based on information provided by inside sources and was presented with the disclaimer that it is unverified. That’s not “fake news”.
And yet, US President-Elect Donald Trump deployed that term to attack the report, on Twitter and in a press conference (starts 22.29).
As readers and journalists, we should reach some sort of consensus about the definition of “fake news” – what specifically it is, and what it is not.
If, in 2017, we start to use “fake news” as Trump did (that is, in an inaccurate and politically-motivated way), the term will lose its meaning.
And if that happens, we should probably just stop using it.
Ultimately, what really matters is whether the contents of a news report, or meme, or online posting are accurate, and not so much how we label one particular strain of falsehood.
Dan Mac Guill is a journalist and writes for TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck.
TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here.
For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Of course ommitting certain topics to fact check based on your own biases also spits in the face of the truth.
Exactly, such as thejournal’s Egyptian friend that gets a minimum of one article every day that would be the perfect case for a fact check on his background / story and it’s not like there has been any shortage of requests for it.
@Shane Corry: They’re too scared to do it. Defamation actions and death threats would be flying in the door. But they’ll dress up that cowardice in some kind of moral terms.
@Shane Corry: the “Egyptian” is Irish. You failed the Fact Check at the first hurdle.
When a media outlet becomes so suffused with a particular ideological bias that an editorial decision is taken to structure content according to a pre ordained narrative then it can no longer lay claim to being a source of objective truth/news rather it becomes a propaganda tool for that self same strain of political ideology and occupies the same space in the public debate as the lobby group (albeit in a less transparent manner)
In the controversy surrounding the phenomenon of fake news which coincidentally has only blown up since Donald Trump’s victory (things were obviously running along swimmingly up to that point – cough) the finger of blame has been pointed firmly in the direction of social media yet interestingly enough news outlets such as the Journal have come to rely even more heavily on social media sites for output since the phenomenon occurred.
A paradoxical position on the face of it.
Probably best not to give this position too much thought philosophically.
I think you may have missed the point. Most fake news doesn’t make it to news channels. Can’t remember RTÉ, CNN or FOX covering pizzagate. All news is biased, mostly its biased towards their audience. Fake news does come from social media but it very often only gets passed around there and then on to the comments section of news sites
@Dave O Keeffe: Most fake news doesn’t make it to news channels. Are you serious. The whole coverage of what has gone on in Syria is pretty much all fake !!! And as for Pizzagate…that was covered by Ben Swann in the States working for an affiliate station to CBS under Reality Check….the original Fact Checker.
Ah yes Ben Swann, who got it from 4chan, who said there’s nothing in John Podesta’s email to suggest it’s true. But wait, isn’t that where the story came from? Hmmm.
@Dave O Keeffe: You said you can’t remember RTE,CNN or Fox covering Pizzagate. CBS did !!!
Which would be a valid rebuttal if I had said they didn’t. They did cover it and at the same time discount the only thing it’s perpetrators said was proof.
I like the fact checks !
The other trouble for Fact Checkers is that even the language has devolved to excuse the lies and spin. Nonsense like “fake news” and “post-truth” seem to let old fashioned lies off the hook. Now thrive the waffle merchants.
https://trickstersworld.com/2017/01/05/ctrl-alt-right-delete/
Still no halawa fact check story. Until then, it’s all nonsense. The people want it
We have newspapers like the indo and the red tops. We know what fake is. We read everyday
Fact
Have you anything to say about your presentation of opinion as fact?
Your ‘Fact Check’ did this:
“Claim 4: There is no proper vetting of refugees entering Ireland, including those coming from Syria
…There’s no proper vetting process for the entry of refugees from Syria, for example.”
The word ‘proper’ is an adjective describing the noun ‘vetting process’.
A claim that ‘there is no vetting process’ would be a factual claim capable of being ‘fact-checked’.
A claim that ‘there is no PROPER vetting process’ is not a factual claim capable of being ‘fact-checked’.
It is a statement of opinion because what constitutes proper and improper is irreducibly a matter of opinion in any context.
You don’t just make mistakes. This one is a deliberate manipulation in the service of what you no doubt consider to be the sacred goal of fighting fascism. So you sacrifice one of the most basic distinctions that a journalist should respect – that between a fact and an opinion. That’s worse than spreading ‘fake news’. And then the media whines about having lost the the trust of the public. That’s how you create fascism, not how you fight it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/national-party-justin-barrett-immigration-facts-3087878-Nov2016/
Marlow, that’s fine, but why aren’t you hitting up Barrett for not using facts? For not using verifiable claims? That fact check detailed every step of the process a Syrian refugee goes through to live in this country. You’d rather keep your head up your arse and wander around saying “no, no, he didn’t mean he could prove any of what he said, he was just talking away so people would hear him”. That fact check, as you’ve ignored also went through more of his “facts”, all false.
@Dave O Keeffe: Yes but, yes but, yes but….
That’s a tu quoque. You implicitly claim that I may not criticize the ‘Fact Checkers’ because I’m a hypocrite. Logic fail.
I’ve stated previously that I believe Barrett either is or sympathizes with neo-Nazis and I don’t support him. I shouldn’t, however, need to state that, or to criticize any of his statements, for what I said about the Fact Checkers to be true. Nor is the accuracy or otherwise of the rest of that article or of anything else Barrett has ever said, relevant to whether what I just said is true or not.
I have personally set out more than once the ways in which our ‘vetting process’ and everyone elses are unfit for purpose. He’s correct about that in my opinion. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That’s a valid subject for debate. But as usual rather than have an honest debate you’re trying to divert attention from what you admit is a ‘Fact Check’ failure by implying that I support neo-Nazis. Journalists should be held to the standards of journalistic ethics. End of.
Where did I say you can’t criticise? Or even call you a hypocrit? Where did I say it was a fact check failure? Funnily enough I also never mentioned neo-nazis. You did that all by yourself. Why not come back with some verifiable facts about the claims you’ve made and see where we’re at then.
Wow, I asked for this article a few days ago, we’ll the definition of fake news at least, Thanks Dan.
Well done Dan. Keep up the good work and keep the fact-checks coming.
Wow, Dan ‘Mac Guill’ (any relation of James McGill of ‘Better call Saul’ fame?), you want to educate the public on what they can or cannot say, and how? You’re backing the wrong pony, that ‘suttle’ gagging tactics is going out of fashion. Fast. All over the world.
Yes, far better to just allow people to publicly say what they want to say, even if it is just a complete pack of makey uppey lies…..
You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.
I am getting the article is a bit like The Anglo Irish reason for giving a reason for how much they need to save themselves and most of us can make ourselves less prone to lying with a bit of effort but it must be beaten out of politicians when they are children.
What a load of rubbish. From stating the obvious, to subjective opinion. I’m not sure that I could rely on facts checked by this author. Facts can be spun the same as lies. One persons fact checker is another persons spin artist.
To the best of my recollection..the ever-present in Irish politics…
The Journal can’t spell check never mind fact check!
I’ve long believed that if Jesus(who is he/she) announced their existence today they would be ridiculed, especially by the media.
Just like it says he was in the Bible
On the Dossier
First you said this: “It was purportedly based on information provided by inside sources and was presented with the disclaimer that it is unverified. That’s not “fake news”. ”
The disclaimer is just an excuse used by MSM to print any garbage it likes? Most people see this for what it is. This is not news it is bad news dressed up as an opinion right?
The problem with that “Dossier” is it had terrible inaccuracies the most glaring was “Lawyer Michael Cohen’s trip to Prague” – did anyone in the MSM ask Mr Cohen before they printed? no they did not if not why not? that is Fake news. Did anyone ask the motivation of the author? we were told he was a concerned M16 operative of high credibility yet he was well rewarded for the dossier – did anyone check that out? You know the answers to all this as we all do. The problem with this dossier highlights your problem as a journalist or anyone fact checking. MSM is discrediting itself by presenting “dodgy” fact to back a political agenda. Now you may say this is standard practise but the problem for Journalists and Politicians is that the truth game is up the truth is ultimately out there and very accessible. I think most MSM outlets should have the same disclaimer attached to every piece as that dossier has.
The dossier may or may not be dodgy, but it’s not fake news to report that it exists.
Dan – I have read many of your factcheck articles and I just wanted to compliment you on the meticulous approach you take. I’m sure at times it’s challenging to be thorough, but it underpins the credibility of these efforts. Stick with it.
I also applaud your abilty to state when points or views or ‘facts’ remain undefined – sometimes it’s impossible to know, and its just as important to say that clearly.
In general we need to call on all our media outlets for better factual analysis of the issues of the day – it is the only way in which people can form rational opinions, as (unfortunately) many of us don’t have the time or to research for the ‘real’ truths – please continue the good work.
Dan – I have read many of your factcheck articles and I just wanted to compliment you on the meticulous approach you take. I’m sure at times it’s challenging to be thorough, but it underpins the credibility of these efforts. Stick with it.
I also applaud your abilty to state when points or views remain undefined – sometimes it’s impossible to know, and its just as important to say that clearly.
In general we need to call on all our media outlets for better factual analysis of the issues of the day – it is the only way in which people can form rational opinions, as (unfortunately) many of us don’t have the time or to research for the ‘real’ truths – please continue the good work.
Factcheck, many who lie or tell the truth do it out of trying to make others believe and feel as they do and that is where they get their motivation from.
People lie to get their own way or to feel in control of others, beliefs or to cause harm as anger is destructive and makes people want to do harm or to be noticed.
Most people enjoy living in a fantasy if it gives them the idea or feeling that they are in control, then the lies are facts if the lies are not just lies that the person who believes them wants to be true?
People uses beliefs to tell them what they think is a lie or not and then they only remember the lie or truth that already agrees with the lie or truth they remember as true because they think it to be true. So a lie or truth can be like a chain full of lies or truths building and reinforcing itself because no one is ever honest with themselves over what they believe because they never questioned themselves because everything is other peoples believes.
And the only thing that makes us start on that step of what to believe is down what others believe from family to community to us changing what we believe to get something in return like being accepted by others or from our own desires and wants. It is our emotions that make us who we are with beliefs and our emotions are not the right way to accept truths (scientifically or otherwise?).
No one questions anything or even their own beliefs because everyone believes that others can be wrong but never themselves and only know that they are telling lies when they want to score points against someone else.
The biggest joke with religion or spirituality is that people do not follow the origions of their religion but use a version they think is true and then use it to tell others that they are wrong because they think that they must be right because God agrees with them and not that they agree with god. So proving that arrogance is key in what people believe because they think others are always wrong who disagrees with them?
What seperates us from the beasts is how we communicate and what seperates us from each other is how we accept whatare lies and what are truths. So fake news is part of humanity as people can fear the truth sometimes as lies are not as scary as the truth and the truth can be unknow as well?
Just a thought on the subject?
Dan, your head must be melted now by that nonsense by now, like listening to whinging children?
The fact is fake news is not news, at one time everyone knew it as the local town / village gossiper and the local bar was another place before the term fake news was coined?
have your say