An independent experimental fact-checking site, exploring and advocating ways to make fact-checking better.
What message does it send if the Poynter Institute declines to correct mistakes in its reporting on fact-checking? On July 3, 2019 the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute published a review of a Pew Research report on public trust in the media. We flagged an error in Daniela Flamini’s reporting. And with a month having passed, the error…
Read more
The Brush-off On Oct. 3, 2018 Zebra Fact Check contacted PolitiFact to point out the need for a correction to a PolitiFact Missouri fact check from Sept. 20, 2018. Our message explained the correction was necessary because PolitiFact Missouri had rated “Mostly False” a claim PolitiFact had stated as true in 2013. PolitiFact gave Zebra Fact Check the brush-off. PolitiFact…
Read more
Not long after the International Fact-Checking Network committed to policing whether signatories to its code of principles were following that code, we observed that the means the IFCN chose to ensure compliance with its code set a low bar for fact-checking organizations. That bar was especially low for organizations’ policies for “open and honest” corrections: How does one verify scrupulous…
Read more
This is a formatted version of an email exchange taking place between Aug. 13, 2018 and Sept. 5, 2018. We have condensed the conversation to focus on the topic, omitting pleasantries and material not clearly offered “on the record.” ZEBRA FACT CHECK (Aug. 13, 2018) Your August 10, 2018 article on the PolitiFact language inventory study misleads in ways…
Read more
Two examples from the past several weeks help solidify our impression that the new journalistic genre of “fact-checking” needs a basic upgrade. In both examples, key principals in the fact-checking industry could not see an error staring them in the face. PolitiFact, Louis Jacobson On Sept. 12, 2018 PolitiFact published a fact check of MSNBC host Joe Scarborough through…
Read more
ZEBRA FACT CHECK From the start, the rating systems for PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker have drawn criticism over their inherent subjectivity. At the same time, such systems draw some strong support from members of the fact-checking community (a Duke Reporters Lab article from 2016 estimates a majority of fact-checking organizations use such rating systems). PolitiFact’s founder, Bill Adair, reportedly participated…
Read more
Does the International Fact-Checking Network effectively confirm that its list of “verified” signatories follows its code of principles? The task makes for a tall order, and we see plenty of reason to doubt. Over the years PolitiFact has impressed us with its ability to ignore well-reasoned criticisms sent to its staff in response to its invitation to find problems with…
Read more
This blog post will clear my spindle of two recent issues connected to the International Fact-Checking Network. If you sign and the IFCN does not verify, then you did not sign A recent update to the IFCN’s page of principles and verified signatories to its statement of principles offended our sense of logic. The IFCN encourages fact-checking organizations to subscribe…
Read more
On Feb. 2, 2018, the International Fact-Checking Network added the Daily Caller’s fact-checking project, Check Your Fact, to its list of “verified signatories” to its fact-checking code of principles. We’re disappointed at the rush to subscribe to the IFCN’s statement of principles. We find some of the principles arbitrary, and one in particular we find deceptive. The Daily Caller’s effort…
Read more
A funny thing happened when the International Fact-Checking Network recognized The Weekly Standard Fact Check as a verified signatory of its statement of principles. Liberals such as economist/columnist Paul Krugman and Media Matters noticed that the IFCN does not stringently enforce its standards for compliance with its statement of principles. Krugman, from his Dec. 8, 2017 op-ed in The New…
Read more