“Want more credit for all you do and who you are? Be the one who gives credit to others.”
Web inventor has an ambitious plan to take back the net CTV
Imitation
may be the sincerest form of flattery. But not in this case.
The
move by the U.K. Conservative Party’s press office to make its Twitter account
look like a real fact-checking site holds implications for fact-checkers’
credibility and presents social media companies with a new test of how to
respond to such ploys. There is also a possibility that it could
backfire.
During
Tuesday’s election debate between Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson and
Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Conservatives changed the name of their
official Twitter
account to "FactCheckUK." The avatar was changed to a check mark,
similar to the logos used by fact-checkers worldwide.
But
instead of true fact-checks, the tweets had a distinct point of view, as would
be expected from a political party’s press shop. One tweet asserted that
Johnson was the “clear
winner” of the debate. (The account has since shifted back to its old name,
CCHQ Press. All along, the handle remained @CCHQPress.)
1. It not only misleads the public, but
undermines and delegitimizes real fact-checking operations. If people start to
believe that fact-checking can come from partisan sources, they no longer have
reason to believe it.
Several responses on Tuesday night fell along those lines. “You dressed up party lines as a fact-check service. That is dystopian,” Emily Maitlis, a BBC “Newsnight” presenter, told Conservative Party Chairman James Cleverly in an interview.
Said the British fact-checker Full Fact: “It is inappropriate and misleading for the Conservative press office to rename their Twitter account ‘factcheckUK’ during this debate. Please do not mistake it for an independent fact checking service.” (Note: Full Fact is a signatory to IFCN's Code of Principles).
Several responses on Tuesday night fell along those lines. “You dressed up party lines as a fact-check service. That is dystopian,” Emily Maitlis, a BBC “Newsnight” presenter, told Conservative Party Chairman James Cleverly in an interview.
Said the British fact-checker Full Fact: “It is inappropriate and misleading for the Conservative press office to rename their Twitter account ‘factcheckUK’ during this debate. Please do not mistake it for an independent fact checking service.” (Note: Full Fact is a signatory to IFCN's Code of Principles).
2. It gives a sense of what social media
companies are up against in a fast-moving news cycle. The change lasted only as
long as the debate, so Twitter didn’t have a lot of time to react. But events
like debates are when people are paying the most attention. Afterward, Twitter did
issue a statement saying that “further attempts to mislead people by
editing verified profile information – in a manner seen during the UK Election
Debate – will result in decisive corrective action."
Full Fact’s chief executive, Will Moy, said the platform could have acted more quickly.
Full Fact’s chief executive, Will Moy, said the platform could have acted more quickly.
3. It plows the ground for more imposter
plays around the world. This has already happened, actually, though not in
quite the same way. Last summer, Cristina
wrote about how the Mexican government has launched its own fact-checking
operation. And as Daniel noted at the time in
this newsletter, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) set up
a fact-checking project called “Fact Squad” as part of her campaign for
president.
Now we have an established political party masquerading as a fact-checker. If the Conservative Party of Britain can do it, who else might try? “The cynical moves show the kind of disdain for the truth exhibited by another world leader, Donald Trump,” Chris Stevenson wrote in The Independent.
Now we have an established political party masquerading as a fact-checker. If the Conservative Party of Britain can do it, who else might try? “The cynical moves show the kind of disdain for the truth exhibited by another world leader, Donald Trump,” Chris Stevenson wrote in The Independent.
One
question is whether the move will backfire. There was outrage from
fact-checkers and other journalists almost immediately on Twitter. The platform
had to respond publicly. And the U.K.’s Electoral Commission issued
a statement calling on “all campaigners to undertake their vital role
responsibly and to support campaigning transparency.”
For
the sake of real fact-checkers, we can hope for a silver lining. Maybe the
episode will draw new attention to the distinction between the legitimate
fact-checkers and those who are just pretending to be.
. . . technology
·
Applications
for the IFCN’s Fact-Checking
Innovation Initiative are now open! Grants will be awarded to 10 recipients
in three tiers: $15,000, $50,000 and $70,000 for projects focused on new
formats, sustainable business models, technology-assisted fact-checking and/or
innovative media literacy solutions. Each applicant/organization may only
submit one application (for one project in one grant amount tier). Apply
by Dec. 8.
·
Facebook
ads spreading
misinformation about vaccines are being funded mainly by two anti-vaccine
groups, according to a new study. The
Washington Post reported that the researchers who did the study were
surprised by the results, as some of this content may appear to be
organic.
·
Lizz
Winstead, a comedy writer and the founder of Abortion Access Front, a group
that advocates for reproductive choice, argued this week in
a piece for Vox that Twitter’s political ad ban could hurt non-profit
organizations like hers. The platform recently changed
its policy, but she argues it still could be problematic.
. . . politics
·
Less
than a month old, the Anti-Fake News Center set up by Thailand’s authoritarian
government arrested a person for the first time. According to The
Bangkok Post, the suspect, who was detained, had anonymously asked people
to join messaging groups at Line
(a WhatsApp-like app), then shared links to "obscene websites that came
with advertisements for diet supplement products." Cristina wrote an article
about it.
·
As
we write this, Iran is under a near-total information
blackout, having been cut off from the internet for more than 100 hours.
Fact-checkers from FactNameh
(who are based in Canada for security reasons) have been using satellite
connections to send their work to Iran, since Telegram, WhatsApp, Twitter,
Facebook and Instagram weren't available. Here is an explanatory
piece they published in English about misinformation regarding the rise of fuel
prices. IFCN will keep reporting on this situation in the coming days. Follow
its website and social media channels to learn more.
·
Facebook
this week convened U.S. Census Bureau officials as well as other tech companies
and civic groups for a summit on protecting the 2020 count. According to The
Washington Post, people working on the problem are on the lookout for
falsehoods that could discourage minorities, immigrants and non-English
speakers from participating.
. . . the future of news
·
The
International Journalists Network interviewed BuzzFeed’s media editor Craig
Silverman. Among his
insights: “Everyone thinks there will be a rather effective deepfake video,
but I wonder if, in the next year, will we see something that is actually
authentic being effectively dismissed as a deepfake, which then causes a mass
loss of trust.”
·
Deepfakes
are probably overstated, three top information researchers write
in Neiman Labs this week. But, they said, there are three approaches
newsrooms can take to ensure that they provide a counterweight to
disinformation.
- French journalist Laurent Bigot transformed his doctoral thesis about fact-checking into a new book (in French only) about the impact of fact-checkers. “Can this work, entrusted to dedicated teams, influence the practices of all editorial teams?” he asks. "Fact-checking vs. Fake news, vérifier pour mieux informer" is available on Amazon.
Fact-checking
during a presidential campaign has always been hard, but handling an
impeachment process at the same time can be exhausting.
The
team at (Poynter-owned) PolitiFact has had a tough week live fact-checking not
only impeachment hearings but also the fifth Democratic presidential debate —
with 10 politicians on the stage.
Here
are some numbers:
PolitiFact
has a team of 13 fact-checkers. At least three of them spent Tuesday, Wednesday
and surely this Thursday glued to a TV to watch hearings
related to President Donald Trump’s impeachment process. Many claims in those
testimonies can’t be fact-checked, but PolitiFact
still covered a few related to the impeachment process, as well as media
appearances about the hearings.
Then
Wednesday night came, giving PolitiFact’s team two hours of intense Democratic
debate. It was the fifth meeting between politicians,co-hosted in Georgia by
MSNBC and The Washington Post. During the event, PolitiFact published
a wrap story with seven fact checks. It was Half True, for example, that
160 million Americans like their insurance plans. It was accurate that other
countries have tried wealth taxes like the one proposed by Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.).
What we liked: To be able to do so much live
fact-checking, PolitiFact needed a plan — and it had it on Monday morning. Each
member of the team knew when they were going to work and were prepared to react
quickly. And their audience responded to this.
1. Wired looked
at how machine learning could fight disinformation.
2. False news is amplifying fear and
confusion in Hong Kong, reported
Agence France-Presse.
3. This is rare: One paper cited a
competitor’s fact-checker, by name, in one
of its corrections.
4. Lydia Polgreen, HuffPost’s
editor-in-chief, argued
in a piece for The Guardian that corporations should do more to reverse the
collapse of the information ecosystem.
5. Two Washington Post writers tackled
the question of how bots might operate in 2020.
6. Here’s another take on those
manufactured local websites popping up across the United States, this time from
The
Guardian.
7. The U.S. embassy and consulates in
Brazil and the fact-checker Agência Lupa are sponsoring a free training program
on content production and fact-checking techniques for journalists and
journalism students from the five regions of Brazil. The program, called
FactCheckLab, will have online and classroom phases, as well as a
professional exchange trip to the United States.
8. History vs. drama: People magazine is fact-checking
the latest episodes of the new Netflix series, “The Crown.”
9. A 2011 Vitamin Water ad suggesting the
drink could be a substitute for a flu shot has been making the rounds online. Forbes
explains.
10. Trump’s attacks on the media as “fake
news” are emboldening authorities around the world to do the same, The
Washington Post said
in an editorial.
via
Daniel,
Susan
and Cristina