Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.
Department of Communication Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 25;18(7):e0289004. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289004. eCollection 2023.
Professional fact-checkers and fact-checking organizations provide a critical public service. Skeptics of modern media, however, often question the accuracy and objectivity of fact-checkers. The current study assessed agreement among two independent fact-checkers, The Washington Post and PolitiFact, regarding the false and misleading statements of then President Donald J. Trump. Differences in statement selection and deceptiveness scaling were investigated. The Washington Post checked PolitiFact fact-checks 77.4% of the time (22.6% selection disagreement). Moderate agreement was observed for deceptiveness scaling. Nearly complete agreement was observed for bottom-line attributed veracity. Additional cross-checking with other sources (Snopes, FactCheck.org), original sources, and with fact-checking for the first 100 days of President Joe Biden's administration were inconsistent with potential ideology effects. Our evidence suggests fact-checking is a difficult enterprise, there is considerable variability between fact-checkers in the raw number of statements that are checked, and finally, selection and scaling account for apparent discrepancies among fact-checkers.
专业的事实核查员和事实核查机构提供了一项重要的公共服务。然而，现代媒体的怀疑论者常常质疑事实核查员的准确性和客观性。本研究评估了两位独立的事实核查员，《华盛顿邮报》和 Politifact，在时任总统唐纳德·J·特朗普的虚假和误导性言论方面的一致性。研究调查了声明选择和欺骗性评分的差异。《华盛顿邮报》检查 Politifact 事实核查的时间为 77.4%（22.6%的选择分歧）。欺骗性评分的观察到中等程度的一致性。归因于真实性的底线几乎完全一致。与其他来源（Snopes、FactCheck.org）、原始来源以及乔·拜登总统上任头 100 天的事实核查进行的额外交叉检查与潜在的意识形态影响不一致。我们的证据表明，事实核查是一项困难的工作，在被检查的声明数量方面，事实核查员之间存在相当大的差异，最后，选择和评分解释了事实核查员之间的明显差异。
