"In the Era of Political Polarization, Fact-Checking Must Continue"

Visiting the US Fact-Check Platform 'PolitiFact' (Part 1)

Editor's Note

As Naver recently ceased its support for SNU FactCheck Center, the only non-profit fact-checking platform in Korea, concerns have been growing among domestic media scholars and international fact-check journalism organizations. This is because 'fake news' is rapidly spreading online, and with the upcoming parliamentary elections next year, the media's fact-checking function must not be weakened. Amid diagnoses that Korean fact-check journalism is facing a crisis, from June 25 (local time) to 28, we visited PolitiFact, one of the three major fact-checking platforms in the United States, located in Washington D.C.

Launched in 2007, PolitiFact is regarded as a role model for fact-checkers worldwide. This is because it maintains a transparent verification process, accuracy in fact-checking, and impartial principles. Katie Sanders, Managing Editor of PolitiFact, said, "The most important aspect for us is the tone." She emphasized that in delivering fact-check results to readers, it is crucial to avoid nuances of criticism or ridicule and to earn trust. In a video call connecting PolitiFact’s Florida office with the Washington D.C. headquarters, Sanders also stressed, "We gain trust by transparently disclosing the process that leads to the conclusion."

The reason for emphasizing tone and transparency is that fact-check journalism faces daily 'attacks' from readers. When a fact-check result scrutinizes statements by prominent Republican politicians, fervent Republican supporters do not trust the outcome. Instead, they label it as 'fake news.' The opposite is also true. Political polarization is a global phenomenon, not only in Korea but also in the United States and beyond. Therefore, it has become as important to transparently disclose the reasons behind the conclusions as it is to show the fact-check results.

PolitiFact operates an evaluation scale called the 'Truth-O-Meter.' Fact-checking results are categorized as truth, mostly truth, half truth, mostly false, false, and pants on fire.

What adds credibility to PolitiFact’s verdicts is the 'Chamber process.' Even after a reporter completes fact-checking, the process does not end there. Editors and the editor-in-chief review the article and the verdict. Final approval of the verdict is made through this chamber meeting. Sanders said, "Often, unanimous opinions are reached, but sometimes there are differing views. In such cases, the evaluation of the majority of editors is followed. The reporter’s opinion is also considered. However, the final decision rests with the editors."

Supporting sources and expert citations that back the verdicts also emphasize thorough transparency. PolitiFact’s fact-checkers actively share their pool of experts. This is not merely sharing phone numbers. Samantha Putterman, a reporter at PolitiFact Florida, said, "We must pre-verify whether those called experts are truly experts in their fields and whether there is evidence for that." Furthermore, even if they are recognized as experts in the field, their statements should not be quoted verbatim. Putterman added, "We consider their political party memberships, election campaign involvement, donation history, and other conflicts of interest."

Despite the explosive growth of fact-check journalism in the 2010s, some still question its effectiveness. The main criticism is that readers do not change their existing views due to preconceptions and biases even after reading fact-check articles. False information continues to thrive, and political polarization deepens. Fact-checkers say, "Nevertheless, fact-checking must continue." Aaron Scharockman, Senior Editor at PolitiFact, said, "The mere fact that fact-checking is conducted reduces the likelihood that those in power will lie." He added, "It also fosters a healthy system by aiming for an environment and society where only the truth is spoken."

John Greenberg, Senior Reporter at PolitiFact

Regarding political polarization, they emphasize responding with a commitment to pursue only the truth and efforts to persuade the other side. John Greenberg, Senior Reporter at PolitiFact, said, "Because false and fake information still spreads, one might think fact-check journalism has lost its goal or failed to solve the problem, but the truth is otherwise." He continued, "The U.S. is also a deeply polarized society. However, most people are not very interested in politics and live peacefully. They are not emotional about political news. Our readers are exactly those people." Greenberg said, "There are more ordinary readers who want to know the truth than those who raise their voices caught up in political bias. Those people are visiting fact-checking sites right now, at this very moment. Fact-checkers exist for those people."

※This article was written with support from the Korea Press Foundation, SNU FactCheck Center, and Pointer Research Institute through the jointly conducted FactCheck Diploma Program.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.