Opinion: Fact-checking does improve political discourse
Political discourse refers to the written or spoken communication, or debate, that takes place in the political sphere and how the public engages and reacts to debates, speeches and statements by politicians.
According to research funded by the American Press Institute (API), fact-checking improves accountability in politicians, especially amongst lower-level legislators; it improves public discourse; trust in journalism and it is well-received by both sides of the political spectrum. Most importantly, it dispels misconceptions.
Dispelling misconceptions and countering the spread of political misinformation is the main objective of fact-checking organisations and according to studies they are successful in this regard and the public appreciates their work.
Research conducted by Columbia University academic Andrew Guess indicated that a large section of the American public, regardless of their political affiliations, are misinformed about public policy issues — their beliefs are incorrect and many of them are very confident in these false beliefs.
Guess’ study found that corrective information, provided by fact-checking initiatives, could be successful at eliminating false beliefs, even among individuals who staunchly held onto their false beliefs.
The value of factual information to political discourse cannot be stressed enough, it has been described as the ‘currency of democratic citizenship’, as it provides citizens with common ground — a shared set of verifiable facts with which they can make informed decisions during elections.
However, fact-checking has its limits, especially in terms of persuasiveness. Researchers have found that fact-checking of dubious statements are less effective when the reader and politician belong to the opposite political parties because of the cynical nature of some readers who tend to think that the opposition is lying before they read the correction.
Repeat offenders in the political game, such as Donald Trump, who repeatedly make false or misleading claims, make it seem as if fact-checking is ineffectual at preventing the spread of misinformation or making politicians think twice before uttering untruths. This is true to a certain extent as fact-checking is reactive by nature. A false claim has to be made before it can be checked and by the time a check has been completed and corrective information has been disseminated it may be too late and misperceptions may already be entrenched. Trump has repeated his favourite false claim 125 times, even though fact-checking organisations have disproven it many times. This makes it seem as if there are no repercussions for spreading misinformation and because of the partisan nature of politics when there is an outcry it is generally only from one side of the political spectrum.
Politicians and legislators who wield less power and influence than the president may be more susceptible to the pressure that comes with scrutiny from fact-checkers, according to a research paper by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler. The paper, ‘The Effects of Fact-Checking Threat’, found that besides increasing voter knowledge and dispelling false beliefs, fact-checking has another benefit — it might help to deter the dissemination of misinformation, especially among individuals at lower levels of government who receive less attention and scrutiny, in general, and could easily lose their positions in re-elections.
The authors said, “We found that legislators who were sent reminders that they are vulnerable to fact-checking were less likely to receive a negative PolitiFact rating or have the accuracy of their statements questioned publicly than legislators who were not sent reminders.”
The authors commented that the findings suggest that the threat — to both, individual and electoral reputation — posed by fact-checking can change the way that an elected official behaves. In lieu of this, it is believed that fact-checking could play a pivotal role in improving political discourse and fostering democratic accountability.
Because of the ease of publishing online, the misinformation industry is more prolific than ever before, therefore it is impossible to track every bit of false information spread online, so fact-checking organisations primarily focus on actors that can have an effect on public discourse. It is ironic that the same information climate, that allows misinformation to thrive, should be so good to fact-checking — from 2008 to 2012 there was a 300 per cent increase in fact-checking stories. The irony has not been lost on Robert Graves, a journalism professor, who in conversation with Vox said: “the irony of political discourse in the age of the internet and social media is that we have never had more substantial fact-driven political discourse than we do today.” However, Graves also noted that it is easier for people to ignore information that they don’t agree with and for rumours to reach the most receptive audience.
