Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fact-Checking Claims, Policies and Parties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fact-Checking Journalism and Political Argumentation

  • 404 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the characteristics of British fact-checking in relation to the theoretical concerns outlined in Chap. 2. It assesses, from both an empirical and ethical perspective, how the three most established fact-checkers negotiate the boundaries of checkable facts, draw on sources and present their verdicts. Drawing on a content analysis of 176 articles and 232 tweets from Channel 4 FactCheck, BBC Reality Check and independent charity Full Fact, it finds that empirically factual claims (measures of current circumstances) were most commonly and unproblematically checked, but theoretical claims (predictions) and social facts (definitions) were also tackled, with mixed results. Interpretation was open to reasonable challenge, so rejection of the verdict in Twitter replies did not necessarily indicate irrationality, even where potentially motivated by partisanship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    RCT064 (31/05/2017) linked to RC43 (28/05/2017) outlining existing powers to stop terror suspects from travelling and RCT122 (04/06/2017) linked to RC64 (04/06/2017) summarising wider security service powers on suspected terrorists, to support Tim Farron’s assertion that the government had only issued one temporary exclusion order in the previous two years.

  2. 2.

    ‘Prevent’ is an anti-terrorism strategy intended to prevent radicalisation, and requires public institutions, including schools and universities, to take measures to minimise risk and to identify individuals deemed at risk of radicalisation.

  3. 3.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reality-check.

  4. 4.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=reality%20check.

  5. 5.

    In contrast, almost two in five of FactCheck’s full fact-checks were on predictions, compared to one in ten of Reality Check’s.

  6. 6.

    Engagement with tweets with positive verdicts on Labour criticisms of the government record was far higher for those on public service funding and staffing (RCT015 on mental health staff and both RCT011 and FCT49 on cuts to policing) than for those growing inequality (RCT091 on falling wages, and RCT006 and RCT038 on child and pensioner poverty, respectively), with far lower engagement, perhaps reflecting Twitter users’ own priorities, or the arguments they thought most effectively persuasive for others.

  7. 7.

    Interestingly, the most forceful criticism came from freelance journalist and previously Channel 4 News economic editor, Paul Mason, who retorted that “That’s an opinion And not a fact. The IFS theory is discredited in academia—pls withdraw,” though others pointed out that he had not offered a source to substantiate his counter-claim.

FactChecks

Tweets

References

  • Anstead, Nick, and Andrew Chadwick. 2018. ‘A Primary Definer Online: The Construction and Propagation of a Think Tank’s Authority on Social Media’, Media, Culture & Society, 40: 246–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks, Jen. 2019. ‘Fact-checking, False Balance, and ‘Fake News’: The Discourse and Practice of Verification in Political Communication.’ In Stuart Price (ed.), Journalism, Power and Investigation: Global and Activist Perspectives (Routledge: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, Jay G. 2019. ‘BBC Campaign Coverage Policy.’ In Dominic Wring, Roger Mortimore and Simon Atkinson (eds.), Political Communication in Britain (Palgrave Macmillan: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammaerts, Bart, Brooks DeCillia, and César Jimenez-Martínez. 2017. ‘Journalistic Transgressions in the Representation of Jeremy Corbyn: From Watchdog to Attackdog’, Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917734055.

  • Dobbs, Michael. 2012. ‘The Rise of Political Fact-checking, How Reagan Inspired a Journalistic Movement’, New America Foundation, Accessed 21 December 2018. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/15318/15318.pdf.

  • Ettema, James S., and Theodore Glasser. 1998. Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue (Columbia University Press: New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, Lucas. 2016. Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-checking in American Journalism (Columbia University Press: New York, NY).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, Lucas, and Federica Cherubini. 2016. The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellon, Jonathan, and Christopher Prosser. 2017. ‘Twitter and Facebook Are Not Representative of the General Population: Political Attitudes and Demographics of British Social Media Users’, Research & Politics, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017720008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Martin, and Gordon Ramsay. 2017. ‘Caught in the Middle: The BBC’s Impossible Impartiality Dilemma.’ In Einar Thorsen, Dan Jackson and Darren Lilleker (eds.), UK Election Analysis 2017 (Bournemouth University: Bournemouth).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, Michael. 2008. Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press (Polity: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Uscinski, Joseph E., and Ryden W. Butler. 2013. ‘The Epistemology of Fact Checking’, Critical Review, 25: 162–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cultural, Media & Visual Studies, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

    Jen Birks

Authors
  1. Jen Birks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jen Birks .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Birks, J. (2019). Fact-Checking Claims, Policies and Parties. In: Fact-Checking Journalism and Political Argumentation. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30573-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation