The practice of fact-checking is a core function of journalism in the 21^st century. As American Press Institute (API) executive director Tom Rosenstiel argues: “Nothing comes closer to journalism’s essential purpose than helping citizens know what is true and what is not. And in an age when information is in greater supply, it is more important, not less, that there are trusted and skilled sources to help citizens sort through misinformation.”

During the 2014 U.S. election cycle, fact-checking projects emerged in print, television, radio and online newsrooms around the country in greater numbers than ever before. Dr. Michelle Amazeen, a Rider University professor and API researcher, found that mentions of “fact-checking” in media increased more than 75 percent between 2011 and 2012 alone.

From this year’s primaries to the general election in 2016, API’s fact-checking project, launched earlier this year with support from The Democracy Fund, is working to improve and develop fact-checking best practices and trainings for newsrooms that want to provide deeper coverage for their audiences. In fact, API’s new emphasis on fact-checking excellence is already reaching beyond U.S. borders. Kirsten Smith, a journalist in Ottawa, Canada, contacted API in May with a request for assistance for her “small newsroom with limited resources” to prepare for the 2014 municipal elections and the 2015 national election. “Have you a tip sheet or primer for a small scale fact check program?” In fact, API has developed a big-picture tip sheet precisely for requests like this, and we will be developing in-depth training programs based on upcoming research.

API also has developed blog features, convened a meeting of its researchers and media, participated in the world’s first international fact-checking conference, and is discussing additional funding sources with organizations interested in promoting better fact-checking. An important initial function of the project is to compile, curate and examine the latest news from the fact-checking front. Features include:

• Q&A interviews with those who study and practice fact-checking;
• The latest from our scholars’ research projects and other studies in fact-checking;
• “How I Got That Fact,” a regular column by journalists across the country who share their fact-checking tips and process;
• A daily, curated collection of fact-checking stories from around the country; and
• More news and learning tools from the fact-checking universe.

A major part of the initiative brings together six experienced scholars from around the U.S. and the U.K. to work on projects designed to examine and improve the practice of fact-checking. Their topics include: the impact of fact-checking on political rhetoric; the effectiveness of rating systems like the Washington Post’s “Pinnochios;” readers’ changing perceptions of fact-checking; and a survey of journalists on the prevalence of fact-checking. The group joined API’s fact-checking project, announced in February, with plenty of experience in the study of information, misinformation, and how facts are processed. Here are the scholars, with a brief description of their work for API:

Michelle Amazeen, Rider University. Amazeen, a Temple University graduate who holds a Ph.D. in mass media and communication, will study the effectiveness of political fact-checking rating systems (such as the Washington Post’s “pinnochios”). On Twitter @commscholar.

Lucas Graves, University of Wisconsin. Graves, who holds a Ph.D. in journalism from Columbia University, has written about fact-checking topics for CJR and other publications. He will study the effects of fact-checking on journalistic practice and is part of the team working on the study of rating systems. On Twitter @gravesmatter.

 

Ashley Muddiman, University of Wyoming. Muddiman, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, is part of the team that will study the effectiveness of rating systems. She also is involved in the Engaging News Project. On Twitter @ashleymuddiman.

Brendan Nyhan, Dartmouth College. Nyhan, who holds a Ph.D. from Duke University, will assist on the project on the effects of fact-checking and a project which will examine how attitudes toward political fact-checking change over the course of a campaign. On Twitter @BrendanNyhan.

Jason Reifler, University of Exeter, UK. Reifler also holds a Ph.D. from Duke University. He will work with the teams studying the effects of fact-checking and changing attitudes during the course of a campaign. On Twitter @jasonreifler.

 

 

Emily Thorson, George Washington University. Thorson holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. She will examine how contextual information in news coverage can minimize misperceptions, and will work with the team studying the effectiveness of ratings systems. On Twitter @emilythorson.

The American Press Institute will combine the researchers’ work with the work of other scholars and API’s own research to identify what kinds of fact-checking are most effective at stopping misleading rhetoric and are most informative to citizens. In the second year of the program, API will conduct workshops and meetings and develop other resources aimed at supporting news organizations interested in fact-checking on the eve of the 2016 election cycle.

Have questions? Topics you’d like to see tackled? A good fact-checked story of your own? Contact me at jane.elizabeth (at) pressinstitute.org, 571-366-1116, @JaneEliz.

This post is by Tom Glaisyer, Kelly Born, and Jonathan Kartt. Tom Glaisyer is the Program Director of the Informed Participation Initiative at the Democracy Fund. Kelly Born is a Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation, where she works on both Special Projects and the Madison Initiative, and Jonathan Kartt works in Programs & Evaluation for the Rita Allen Foundation.

How will voters find information in 2014?

For those who care about US democracy, this question is front and center in a world where both the structure of the news media and the channels through which voters get information are in flux. In the not too distant past, voters received most of their information about candidates and ballot measures through mass market dailies and TV or radio—places where the message was mediated by gatekeepers. The only opportunity to directly communicate with voters was through paid advertising or in-person contact. Nowadays, candidates have limitless options to directly reach voters – even television, when delivered via satellite, permits hyper targeting of political advertising messages.

 

But it’s not just campaigns that are exploiting these new digital opportunities—a host of (mostly new) organizations, non-profit and for-profit, are seeking not to win a vote, but to inform voters about their options.

It’s an exciting time for the field. Abroad, websites that match voters to policy positions held by parties, so-called voting advice applications, have seen significant adoption. In Germany, for example, Wahl-o-Mat was queried 13.2M times in 2013—not bad when you consider there are only 80M people in the country. In the US, we have encountered dozens of similar sites such as Vote411, ethePeople and Project VoteSmart.

 

The digitization of data permits an increasing amount of contextual information to be added to what was previously just a thumbnail sketch of a candidate or issue. For example, information on candidates or ballot initiatives can now be combined with “rules of the road” on where and when to vote, and what materials to bring. This digital “plumbing” is often under-appreciated—Google’s Civic Information API provide a way to lookup polling places in 2014 and listed the candidates on the ballot. It builds on data from the PEW Charitable Trust’s Voting Information Project and augments a recently developed iOS app.

Recognizing the possibilities in this emerging ecosystem of voter information, the Hewlett Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation and the Democracy Fund partnered to explore the dozens of voter information websites that have developed in the last few years. We examined a number of dimensions:

• Candidates vs Ballot Initiatives (or both): Many of the sites focus on candidates, while others like Healthy Democracy in Oregon and Washington State’s Living Voters Guide have (until recently) focused exclusively on ballot measures. Others like ethePeople, Project VoteSmart and PollVault, cover both.
• Geographic Scope: Many provide national coverage, whereas others, like ethePeople, partner with media and civics groups in specific states or localities. Maplight’s Voter’s Edge, cover national races, while also offering some down-ballot coverage in particular states (in this case, California).
• Audience: Some, like Ballotpedia, provide detailed information that might appeal more to policy wonks like ourselves, whereas Voter’s Edge or Who’s On The Ballot seek to serve those who prefer a less detailed view.
• Approach: Sites like Voter’s Edge provide “just the facts” (on a lot of dimensions, including candidate’s prior jobs, campaign funding sources, etc.). Others, like the newly launched Crowdpac,use campaign funding sources to predict candidates’ positions, in an attempt to address the challenge of comparing a 30-year incumbent’s record to that of a first-time challenger who has never held office. ISideWith uses matching algorithms – and has now paired more than 11 million users with their “ideal” candidates based on answers to basic philosophical and political questions (e.g., “what is your stance on taxation?”). Still others actually involve citizens in the deliberative process: Healthy Democracy in Oregon convenes a representative panel of dozens of citizens for a week to evaluate the pros and cons of a particular ballot initiative. The information is then shared with voters in the official voting guide. Research has shown how valued that information has been – a majority of Oregonians were aware of the tool, and roughly two thirds who read the CIR statements found them helpful when deciding how to vote. In Washington State the Living Voters Guide has utilized a deliberative platform to allow voters to share why they are in favor of or opposed to a particular initiative.
• Business Models: Half of what we found are for-profit operations like Crowdpac and Poll Vault. The other half (most of what we’ve discussed herein) are nonprofit. So we spoke with venture capitalists who had invested in several of the for-profit competitors to understand their reasons for doing so, and to ensure that we felt there was a good rationale for philanthropic investment in this space.
• Operating and Partnership Approaches: Some, like Project VoteSmart, rely on teams of dedicated interns, while others are striving towards more automated systems. We also looked at organizations’ partnerships – many like ethePeople are collaborating extensively as part of their model, others are closer to independent operators.
• Use: Finally, we looked at use. Not much is known about the end-users of these types of voting information services beyond broad demographic statistics. In terms of numbers, some platforms have received a fair amount of uptake, whereas others are so new that no usage data is even available yet – however, no site appears to have come close to Wahl-o-Mat’s success in Germany.

This wide variety of activity left us with lots of questions: whether and how to support this field, who to partner with, and on what kinds of projects? We have begun to explore these questions, and will discuss our early work on this topic in a follow-up post next week.