← Back to Insights

Module: Professional Fact-Checking

By SAUFEX Consortium • 23 January 2026

[screen 1]

A politician makes a statistical claim. A viral post alleges a conspiracy. A meme distorts historical facts. Within hours, professional fact-checkers publish detailed investigations with evidence and ratings.

Professional fact-checking has emerged as a crucial defense against misinformation. Understanding how it works, its standards, and its limitations is essential for anyone navigating the information environment.

[screen 2]

What Is Professional Fact-Checking?

Fact-checking verifies the accuracy of factual claims:

Definition: Systematic verification of factual claims in public discourse

Key characteristics:

  • Independent, dedicated organizations
  • Trained professional staff
  • Established methodologies
  • Transparent sourcing
  • Published corrections policy
  • Nonpartisan approach

Scope: Political claims, viral content, historical assertions, scientific claims, media reports

Not: Opinion verification, speculation evaluation, satireclarification

Fact-checking focuses on objectively verifiable factual claims.

[screen 3]

Brief History

Fact-checking evolved from journalism:

Early origins: Magazines employing fact-checkers (1920s+)

Political fact-checking emergence:

  • FactCheck.org (2003)
  • PolitiFact (2007)
  • Washington Post Fact Checker (2007)

Social media era explosion (2016+):

  • Facebook partnerships
  • Platform funding programs
  • Global expansion
  • Misinformation crisis response

Current state: Hundreds of organizations globally, increasing professionalization

Growth reflects information environment deterioration.

[screen 4]

The IFCN Code of Principles

International Fact-Checking Network establishes standards:

Five principles:

  1. Nonpartisanship and fairness: No political bias in selection or verification

  2. Transparency of sources: Clear citation of evidence

  3. Transparency of funding: Disclosure of financial supporters

  4. Transparency of methodology: Explaining verification process

  5. Honest corrections policy: Promptly correcting errors

Significance: IFCN signatories meet minimum credibility standards. Facebook and others only partner with IFCN-certified fact-checkers.

Not all “fact-checking” meets these standards.

[screen 5]

Fact-Checking Methodology

Professional fact-checking follows systematic processes:

Step 1: Claim selection

  • Viral claims, important political statements
  • Potentially harmful misinformation
  • Newsworthy false claims

Step 2: Research

  • Consult primary sources
  • Interview experts
  • Review official data and documents
  • Check context and framing

Step 3: Analysis

  • Determine factual accuracy
  • Assess context and nuance
  • Identify what’s misleading vs false

Step 4: Rating and publication

  • Assign accuracy rating
  • Explain findings with evidence
  • Provide context

Step 5: Corrections

  • Monitor for errors
  • Publish corrections transparently

[screen 6]

Rating Systems

Fact-checkers use various rating scales:

PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter:

  • True / Mostly True / Half True / Mostly False / False / Pants on Fire

FactCheck.org approach:

  • Descriptive analysis without ratings
  • Explains what’s wrong

Washington Post Pinocchios:

  • 1-4 Pinocchios based on severity
  • Geppetto Checkmark for truth

International variations:

  • True/False binary
  • Multi-point scales
  • Color coding (green/yellow/red)

Trade-offs: Ratings aid comprehension but oversimplify nuance.

[screen 7]

Major Fact-Checking Organizations

United States:

  • PolitiFact (Pulitzer Prize winner)
  • FactCheck.org (Annenberg Public Policy Center)
  • Washington Post Fact Checker
  • Snopes (viral claims, urban legends)

International:

  • Full Fact (UK)
  • Les Décodeurs (Le Monde, France)
  • Maldita.es (Spain)
  • Africa Check (pan-African)
  • Chequeado (Argentina)

Networks:

  • International Fact-Checking Network (90+ organizations)
  • European Fact-Checking Standards Network

Hundreds of organizations operate globally in dozens of languages.

[screen 8]

Fact-Checking vs. Journalism

Related but distinct practices:

Traditional journalism:

  • Broad news coverage
  • Breaking news focus
  • Verification before publication
  • Balanced reporting emphasis

Fact-checking:

  • Focused on verification of existing claims
  • Correcting record after false claims circulate
  • Explicit accuracy judgments
  • Less concerned with “balance” than truth

Overlap: Many fact-checkers are journalists; verification skills transfer

Tension: Explicit truth judgments more controversial than traditional reporting

Fact-checking emerged partly from journalism’s limitations in combating misinformation.

[screen 9]

Platform Partnerships

Fact-checkers partner with social platforms:

Facebook/Meta Third-Party Fact-Checking Program:

  • IFCN-certified fact-checkers review content
  • False content gets reduced distribution, labels
  • Available in 60+ languages
  • Platforms fund some fact-checking

Google Fact Check Explorer:

  • Aggregates fact-checks using ClaimReview schema
  • Surfaces in search results

TikTok, YouTube partnerships:

  • Varying models of fact-checker collaboration

Controversy:

  • Platform funding raises independence questions
  • Effectiveness debates
  • Platforms decide enforcement

Partnerships provide scale but raise accountability questions.

[screen 10]

Effectiveness and Impact

Research on fact-checking effectiveness shows mixed results:

Evidence of positive effects:

  • Corrections can change beliefs (especially among less partisan)
  • Reduces sharing of false content
  • Deters politicians from false claims

Limitations:

  • Backfire effect: Corrections sometimes strengthen false beliefs
  • Limited reach: Fact-checks reach fewer than false claims
  • Partisan resistance: Identity-congruent corrections rejected
  • Labeling effects vary

Platform impact:

  • Reduced distribution of labeled content
  • Some evidence of reduced misinformation spread
  • But: Labeled content still widely viewed

Fact-checking helps but isn’t sufficient alone.

[screen 11]

Criticisms and Controversies

Fact-checking faces substantial criticism:

Bias accusations:

  • Claims of partisan selection and ratings
  • Research generally doesn’t support systematic bias
  • But: Perception of bias reduces effectiveness

Scope limitations:

  • Only tiny fraction of false claims checked
  • Selection may miss important false narratives

Judgment calls:

  • Some claims aren’t clearly true/false
  • Context debates
  • “Mostly true” vs “mostly false” can be subjective

Dependency concerns:

  • Platform funding creates conflicts
  • Access to platforms for research

Weaponization:

  • Bad actors create fake “fact-checks”
  • Partisan outfits masquerading as fact-checkers

[screen 12]

Automated Fact-Checking

AI and automation increasingly involved:

Current capabilities:

  • Claim detection in text
  • Matching claims to existing fact-checks
  • Finding relevant evidence sources
  • Supporting human fact-checkers

Limitations:

  • Nuance and context understanding
  • Novel claims not previously checked
  • Verification still requires human judgment

Future trajectory:

  • More automation for routine verification
  • Human fact-checkers for complex claims
  • Hybrid human-AI workflows

Automation addresses scale problem but can’t replace human judgment.

[screen 13]

Specialized Fact-Checking

Different domains require specialized expertise:

Health misinformation:

  • Science Feedback
  • Health Feedback
  • Medical expertise required

Climate misinformation:

  • Climate Feedback
  • Scientific consensus basis

Visual content:

  • Photo/video forensics specialists
  • AFP Fact Check visual team

Election misinformation:

  • Specialized election monitoring
  • Voting process expertise

Domain expertise essential for credible fact-checking in technical areas.

[screen 14]

Fact-Checking in Authoritarian Contexts

Fact-checking faces unique challenges under authoritarian regimes:

Challenges:

  • Government pressure and censorship
  • Safety risks for fact-checkers
  • Limited access to official data
  • State-controlled “fact-checking” as propaganda
  • Platform restrictions

Approaches:

  • Independent funding sources
  • International partnerships
  • Focus on verifiable claims
  • Balancing truth-telling with safety

Examples:

  • Grassroots fact-checking in Myanmar
  • Independent fact-checkers in Turkey
  • Russian-language fact-checking from abroad

Fact-checking as form of resistance in some contexts.

[screen 15]

Financial Sustainability

Fact-checking organizations face funding challenges:

Funding sources:

  • Philanthropic foundations
  • Platform partnerships (Facebook, Google)
  • News organization budgets
  • Government grants (some countries)
  • Crowdfunding/memberships

Sustainability concerns:

  • Dependence on platforms creates vulnerabilities
  • Foundation funding often temporary
  • Audience revenue difficult to scale
  • Labor-intensive work expensive

Business model challenges: High-quality verification is expensive; monetization difficult

Many fact-checkers operate on precarious financial foundations.

[screen 16]

How to Use Fact-Checks

Getting the most from professional fact-checking:

Finding fact-checks:

  • Google Fact Check Explorer
  • Platform labels linking to fact-checks
  • Fact-checker websites and social accounts
  • Search with “fact check” + claim keywords

Evaluating fact-checks:

  • Check fact-checker credentials (IFCN certified?)
  • Review evidence provided
  • Consider whether sources are credible
  • Note limitations and caveats
  • Check publication date (recent?)

Sharing fact-checks:

  • Share when correcting misinformation
  • Provide context, not just link
  • Consider framing (avoid amplifying false claim)

[screen 17]

The Limits of Fact-Checking

Fact-checking isn’t a complete solution:

What fact-checking can do:

  • Correct specific false factual claims
  • Provide accurate information
  • Create accountability for false claims
  • Reduce some misinformation spread

What fact-checking can’t do:

  • Address underlying polarization
  • Reach all audiences
  • Prevent all false belief formation
  • Solve information disorder alone
  • Change deeply held identity-based beliefs

Complementary approaches needed:

  • Media literacy education
  • Platform design changes
  • Regulatory frameworks
  • Institutional trust-building
  • Addressing root causes of misinformation susceptibility

Fact-checking is necessary but not sufficient.

[screen 18]

The Future of Fact-Checking

Likely trajectories:

Professionalization: Increasing standards, training, credentialing

Internationalization: Growing global coverage and coordination

Specialization: Domain-specific expertise deepening

Automation: AI assistance for scale while maintaining human oversight

Integration: Closer ties between fact-checking, journalism, and research

Challenges ahead:

  • Adversaries adapting tactics
  • Sustainability questions
  • Effectiveness in polarized environments
  • AI-generated misinformation scale

Vision: Fact-checking as permanent infrastructure in healthy information ecosystems, but only one component of comprehensive defense.

All Insights