A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Checking PolitiFact's Fact-Checks
Tekijät: Nieminen Sakari, Sankari Valtteri
Kustantaja: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Julkaisuvuosi: 2021
Journal: Journalism Studies
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: JOURNALISM STUDIES
Lehden akronyymi: JOURNALISM STUD
Vuosikerta: 22
Numero: 3
Aloitussivu: 358
Lopetussivu: 378
Sivujen määrä: 21
ISSN: 1461-670X
eISSN: 1469-9699
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1873818
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/53306960
Tiivistelmä
In this article we examine PolitiFact's fact-checking process. We collect a random sample of 858 fact-checks and evaluate them in the light of criteria based on or inspired by fact-checking literature and the International Fact-checking Network's code of principles. Our analysis reveals the following: in general, PolitiFact fared well. However, from the point of view of the criteria, its practices leave room for improvement. The biggest issue is complex propositions. These are statements containing multiple claims, i.e., more than one proposition. In 279 cases (33% of our sample), PolitiFact checks a complex proposition and assigns one truth rating to it. This is problematic as the reader might misinterpret the truthfulness of an individual claim. PolitiFact also checks claims that we considered uncheckable. These are statements whose truthfulness cannot be defined in practice, e.g., claims about the future and vague claims. In 92 cases (11% of our sample), PolitiFact checked a claim like this. The article ends with a discussion about the limitations of the criteria used here.
In this article we examine PolitiFact's fact-checking process. We collect a random sample of 858 fact-checks and evaluate them in the light of criteria based on or inspired by fact-checking literature and the International Fact-checking Network's code of principles. Our analysis reveals the following: in general, PolitiFact fared well. However, from the point of view of the criteria, its practices leave room for improvement. The biggest issue is complex propositions. These are statements containing multiple claims, i.e., more than one proposition. In 279 cases (33% of our sample), PolitiFact checks a complex proposition and assigns one truth rating to it. This is problematic as the reader might misinterpret the truthfulness of an individual claim. PolitiFact also checks claims that we considered uncheckable. These are statements whose truthfulness cannot be defined in practice, e.g., claims about the future and vague claims. In 92 cases (11% of our sample), PolitiFact checked a claim like this. The article ends with a discussion about the limitations of the criteria used here.
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
Turun yliopiston Tutkimustietojärjestelmän portaali