A lot of people (including me) complain about "fact checkers". An organization that is actually doing something about it is the Society Library. They use curated argument mapping to exhaustively link claims, counterclaims, and references on controversial topics.
The idea that controversial and complex arguments can proceed in any other way (e.g. by outsourcing your opinion to an opaque and possibly incompetent or corrupt fact-checking authority) is counterproductive, to say the least.
The Society Library has in fact been hired by Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (mentioned in the article above) to create an educational curriculum for fact checkers.
I like the idea that they link to claims and counterclaims, I was thinking something along those lines might be a good way to approach the issue. I will check them out -- thank you for sharing!
Most worrying is the complete shutdown of dissent. Even things once considered cold, hard, uncontested fact have been successfully shot down by a proper dissent. The fast and loose open-to-interpretation "fact checks" don't stand much of a chance.
Lately, I have to read a variety of sources, most of them non-American, to legitimize news of a geopolitical nature. Nobody respects mainstream media, be it online or print. Technical data or medical information is usually verifiable from larger university studies, but you again have to follow the funding. Words are plentiful, but truth and accuracy are a delicacy rarely enjoyed these days!
You're taking the right approach—going for a variety of sources—though of course that's more time consuming. Hope we can find ways to bring the delicacy back. I think the more of an appetite there is, the more resources we will see.
A lot of people (including me) complain about "fact checkers". An organization that is actually doing something about it is the Society Library. They use curated argument mapping to exhaustively link claims, counterclaims, and references on controversial topics.
The idea that controversial and complex arguments can proceed in any other way (e.g. by outsourcing your opinion to an opaque and possibly incompetent or corrupt fact-checking authority) is counterproductive, to say the least.
The Society Library has in fact been hired by Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (mentioned in the article above) to create an educational curriculum for fact checkers.
See: https://societylibrary.medium.com/improving-fact-checking-by-improving-context-checking-93af262baac1
I like the idea that they link to claims and counterclaims, I was thinking something along those lines might be a good way to approach the issue. I will check them out -- thank you for sharing!
Most worrying is the complete shutdown of dissent. Even things once considered cold, hard, uncontested fact have been successfully shot down by a proper dissent. The fast and loose open-to-interpretation "fact checks" don't stand much of a chance.
Well written article Katherine. Right now, I think many people are questioning the integrity of all fact checking media. Media in general.
Kathleen Foster
I think calmatters has some quality journalists and good ethics.
I'll have to take a look, haven't checked that one out yet.
Lately, I have to read a variety of sources, most of them non-American, to legitimize news of a geopolitical nature. Nobody respects mainstream media, be it online or print. Technical data or medical information is usually verifiable from larger university studies, but you again have to follow the funding. Words are plentiful, but truth and accuracy are a delicacy rarely enjoyed these days!
You're taking the right approach—going for a variety of sources—though of course that's more time consuming. Hope we can find ways to bring the delicacy back. I think the more of an appetite there is, the more resources we will see.
I used to go to them to. It didn't feel quite so subjective at its start...