magnifying glass near gray laptop computer — Photo by Agence Olloweb on Unsplash

I recently discovered a whole movement of people attempting to discredit fact-checkers. This shocked me because according to the Cambridge Dictionary,

Fact-checking is a process that seeks to verify factual information, in order to promote the veracity and correctness of reporting.

So isn’t critiquing fact-checkers in itself fact-checking? It seems kind of contradictory to argue against fact-checking, but just for fun let’s see with the critics have to say.

“There are Fake Fact-Checkers”

One day, while arguing with someone on Twitter, I referenced an article from Politifact. The fellow Twitter user complained, “anyone can set up a fact-checking site.”

So, to be sure, there are some professionally made fake fact-checking sites. In fact, during an interview for NPR, Daniel Esterin noted:

Disinformation was a big problem before the war in Ukraine. Now it's even worse with the rise of fake fact-checkers. You've probably seen real fact-check articles online, news organizations debunking rumors and fake news circulating on social media. Several channels on the messaging app Telegram look like independent fact-checkers, but if you look closer, you see they're actually pro-Russian propaganda outlets spreading fake news about the invasion.

It's sad that kind of stuff happens, but fake information on the web is not limited to fact-checking sites. The internet is chock full of fake crap, which is why there are fact-checkers anyway.

Summary: This claim is a hasty generalization fallacy, which attempts to say that since some sites are fake, none can be trusted.

“Fact Checkers Are Biased”

Fact-checkers have been derided as being biased. But isn’t everyone? The critics of fact-checkers are also biased. Just because people are inherently biased doesn’t mean everything they say is false. In fact, the properly conducted activity of fact-checking minimizes bias by properly applying the principles of logic and data verification.

“Fact Checkers are Wrong”

Sometimes, fact-checkers are accused of being wrong. We can all agree that fact-checkers are probably wrong sometimes. But then, so are doctors, economists, lawyers, and, well, pretty much everyone.

It is another example of the hasty generalization fallacy. You cannot logically reject the whole field of fact-checking on this basis.

“Fact-checkers Are Not Qualified”

A prominent anti-vax medical doctor on Substack tried to discredit fact-checkers by criticizing their credentials. He made statements like the one below about several of them.

Catalina Jarmillo’s training is from the Columbia School of Journalism.
Why would anyone place any credence in what she has to say about toxicology and molecular virology? How many excess deaths can be attributed to this lie?

Our anti-vax doctor here has made three logical errors in the space of two sentences,

First, the doctor has committed an ad hominem fallacy, where the critic attacks a person based on their personal characteristics rather than the quality of their argument. By the doctor’s logic, we should not read his Substack newsletter because he is not a journalist.
Second, the doctor mischaracterizes what the journalists are doing. This is called the equivocation fallacy. The journalist is not making medical judgments. Rather, the journalist is simply reporting the judgments of other medical experts—in this case, the ones who just happened to (surprise!) disagree with the anti-vax doctor.
Third, the last question insinuates you believe there are excess deaths (a leading question) and that the journalist was lying (causal fallacy) when they were probably just reporting using their best judgment, whether the doctor agreed with it or not.

All Fact Checking is Propaganda

Some people attack fact-checkers for being part of the media institution. For example, this sort of thing is said:

The “fact checkers” are PAID liars.
No wonder the so-called “fact checkers” always say the same thing. They are in on it and making loads of money from the lethal injection vaxx. They are motivated by the $$$. The Reuters’ “fact checking” service quickly protected and shielded the Pfizer CEO but concealed the fact that Reuters’ Chairman sits on the Board of Pfizer. That’s FRAUD!

Obviously, the argument above has a lot of unsubstantiated (and probably false) claims that need fact-checking themselves. But for our discussion, we want to notice that the basic argument is unsupported and most likely false – all fact-checkers are not getting paid to lie. Some fact checkers are private individuals and non-profit organizations; even if an organization like Fox or CNN prefers that their writers focus on certain perspectives over others, selecting topics that appeal to your audience is not lying. The writer’s argument is rife with unsupported and seemingly illogical connections.

Some people take it even deeper and imagine a massive conspiracy behind the fact-checkers. For example, writer Sharyl Attkisson, author of Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism said in a YouTube video:

“One has to understand that nearly every mode of information has been co-opted, if it can be co-opted by some group. Fact checks are no different either, they’ve been coopted in many instances or created for the purpose of distributing narratives and propaganda.
…
That’s been created as part of a propaganda effort by somebody, somewhere, as part of a narrative to distribute to the public so virtually every piece of information that can be co-opted has been.”

Attkisson’s rationale is based on stories she heard where less than pure, unbiased journalism happened, such as:

Pressure campaigns from political operatives, government agencies, and corporations on reporters to report or not report things
Direction from bosses to suppress or highlight certain info
Uses of propaganda methods by some information sources

I’m sure these cases exist, probably more than we would like to think, but it’s still a stretch—or more specifically a sophisticated hasty generalization fallacy mixed with illogical or impractical assumptions—to extrapolate from a few dozen cases to declare how all of media in the Western world operates.

The whole argument is a performative contradiction. When you consider the whole “information space,” then you are talking about all kinds of social, millions of internet sites, millions of private publishers, and people making their own podcasts and videos. They are all saying every kind of opinion with virtually no control. For that matter, even big players like CNN and Fox often disagree with each other. Simply thinking a bit more deeply about it shows it is not true. The very fact the Ms. Attkisson is out on YouTube talking up her view is proof itself.

Why Attack Fact Checking?

The assault on fact-checking is curiously contradictory. The attackers seem to employ a range of logical fallacies: overgeneralize from a few cases, making ad hominem attacks, and assume unproven nefarious motives and connections.

In all of these critiques, what we find missing is an actual critique of the logic and claims made by any specific fact checker. The critic’s argument seems to be “I believe what I am saying is true, and you are saying it isn’t. So you are a liar.”

You probably won’t be surprised when I reveal that the people I found criticizing fact-checkers were also people spreading the kind of (mis)information most prone to debunking by fact-checkers. The fact-checking discipline and its industry was not being attacked by the American Medical Association, the National Rifle Association, or the American Civil Liberties Union. No, the critics of fact-checkers were spreaders of misinformation about elections and vaccines. So it seems that fact-checking is mostly derided the people who are lacking facts and don’t want that pointed out by fact checkers!

The Positive Politics Newsletter

Lessons from the Curious Assault on Fact…