By James Aitchison

The New York Times masthead proclaims: “All the news that’s fit to print.”  The newspaper’s mission is clear: “We seek the truth and help people understand the world.  This mission is rooted in our belief that great journalism has the power to make each reader’s life richer and more fulfilling, and all of society stronger and more just.”  The newspaper is proud of its independence:“Over a hundred years ago, The Times pledged to give the news impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.  That commitment remains true today: We follow the truth, wherever it leads.”

But what is the truth?  And where does it lead?

Before social media, people tended to buy newspapers that reflected their own views.  Some newspapers were liberal and left-leaning, others more conservative and right-leaning.  Even back then, opinions and editorials were generally demarcated from the news itself.  

In the age of social media, of course, the truth exists — if it does at all — on a different playing field.

Social media platforms are now the mechanisms by which billions of people access information and form opinions.  Homophily plays a key role: the fact we seek out and are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves.  As humans, we tend to limit the diverse perspectives we might be exposed to. 

Which is why social media is so attractive.  Social media encourages the formation of groups of like-minded users, framing and reinforcing a shared narrative.  These ecosystems or environments are known as echo chambers, in which users encounter beliefs and ideologies that amplify or reinforce their own pre-existing beliefs.  By circulating and repeating existing views inside a closed system, insulated from alternative perspectives or rebuttal, they achieve a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.  Over time, the group can likely move towards more extreme positions.

In 2011, Eli Parisier’s book The Filter Bubble explained how internet search engines and their algorithms were creating a situation where users increasingly receive information which confirms their prior beliefs.  Norwegian professor Harald Holone also demonstrated how search algorithms harness vast quantities of information about individual users to find information relevant to them.  In fact, the algorithms make it more likely that users will receive results that their social network in general is gravitating towards.

As early as 2018, research showed that fake news travelled faster than real news.  Online polarisation fostered the rapid spread of misinformation, while algorithms determined content which conformed with users’ preferences and attitudes.

None of this should surprise us.

Australia’s renowned social researcher and psychologist Hugh Mackay created the Cage Metaphor.  Mackay explains that we build invisible cages around ourselves from young.  The bars consist of our values, beliefs, emotions, experiences.  As we grow and encounter new experiences, positive and negative, we build more bars.  Over time, the bars harden.  Incoming news, opinions or advertising cannot penetrate the bars unless it coincides with our world view.

However, all is not lost. 

A new industry — fact-checking — has sprung up to counter misinformation.

PolitiFact is part of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school and research organization based in St Petersburg, Florida, USA.  The school is also the owner of the Tampa Bay Times newspaper.  PolitiFact’s mission is to fact-check America’s leaders and “expose their pants-on-fire claims”.  Their website states: “Contributions or gifts are tax deductible.  PolitiFact does not accept donations from anonymous sources, political parties, elected officials or candidates seeking public office, or any other source with a conflict of interest as determined by PolitiFact’s executive director.  Accepting financial support does not mean PolitiFact endorses the products, services or opinions of its members. Truth Squad members have no say in the ratings PolitiFact issues.  PolitiFact does not give donors the right to review or edit content.”

The Poynter Institute also owns The International Fact-Checking Network, launched in 2015 to bring together the growing community of fact-checkers around the world.  Its website states: “The network advocates for information integrity in the global fight against misinformation and supports fact-checkers through networking, capacity building and collaboration.  IFCN’s network reaches more than 170 fact-checking organizations worldwide through advocacy, training and global events.  Our team monitors trends in the fact-checking field to offer resources to fact-checkers, contribute to public discourse and provide support for new projects and initiatives that advance accountability in journalism.  We believe truth and transparency can help people be better informed and equipped to navigate harmful misinformation”. 

In 2024, IFCN’s director Angie Drobnic Holan visited India and praised that country’s fact-checking.  She said there are more fact-checking organisations in India than any other country, and they lead in terms of both innovation and diversity.

Media Bias/Fact Check LLC is an independent American website founded in 2015 by Dave M. Van Zandt, headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.  He is primary editor, assisted by a collective of volunteers and paid contractors who provide research for many sources listed on the website.  MBFC publishes daily curated fact-checks from around the world. 

The website explains MBFC’s mission: “To educate the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.  We inspire action and a rejection of overtly biased media, resulting in a return to an era of straightforward fact-based news reporting.  Our purpose is to give people the resources and tools needed to understand the bias and credibility of the sources they consume.”  It states that “MBFC is 100% independent, relying only on low monthly membership fees and small donations from individuals.”

MBFC assesses political bias and factuality through four main categories: the use of wording and headlines, fact-checking and sourcing, choice of stories, and political affiliation.  Subcategories include bias by omission, bias by source selection, and use of loaded language.

Each news source is rated on a seven-point scale.  For example, a left-leaning source looks like this:

A strongly right-leaning source looks like this:

A news agency like Reuters looks like this:

FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Centre of the University of Pennsylvania.  Their website explains: “APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels. We are a nonpartisan, non-profit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.  We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.”

Their website gives one example of how Fact.Check.org exposes fake news:

President Donald Trump said his administration blocked $50 million for condoms to be sent to Gaza through its pause on foreign aid.  His press secretary said: “That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer money.”  Trump repeated the claim the next day.  “We identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas.  They’ve used them as a method of making bombs.”

FactCheck.org reported: “The Trump administration has not provided any evidence that $50 million was ever directed by the U.S. government for the purchase of condoms for the war-torn Gaza Strip.  The contractor identified by the government as the recipient of the funding said it provides hospital services in Gaza and has not used U.S. funds ‘to procure or distribute condoms.’  Other U.S. agencies provide little to no funding for condoms in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, in the UK, FullFact is a registered charity whose aim is to: “Fight bad information in different ways.”  Their website states: “Bad information ruins lives.  We’re a team of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm it does.  False or misleading claims affect us all. As fact checkers, we’ve seen first-hand how bad information promotes hate, damages people’s health, and hurts democracy.” 

FullFact fact-checks claims made by politicians, public institutions and journalists, as well as viral content online.  “We follow up on our fact checking by asking people to correct the record when they get things wrong.”  The organisation has developed “world-leading technology to spot repeated claims and tackle bad information at a global scale.”  FullFact’s funding is supported by “thousands of people and organisations that our work remains independent.”

Among claims FullFact has proved false are “One million children have been the victims of grooming gangs” and “163 million people searched ‘how to hit a woman so no one knows’.”

The Australian Associated Press FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.  AAP FactCheck’s mission is to “reduce the spread and impact of false information… and provide rigorous and impartial analysis of misinformation and disinformation circulating online and in the public discourse.”

Its website demonstrates one such case of misinformation when an Army helicopter collided with an American Airlines passenger jet landing at Washington airport.  It was claimed that a transgender pilot had been in command of the Black Hawk.  Transgender is a loaded word and attracts hostile commentary on social media.  AAP FactCheck proved the claim false.

Other fact-checking organisations include RMIT ABC Fact Check in Australia, and Snopes in the US.

As we have seen, it is a never-ending task to scrupulously examine every false claim, alternative fact and conspiracy theory on the internet.  It is a case of the fact-checkers versus the echo chambers.  One can only hope that — eventually — the truth will set us free.