Strategy Archives

My 9 Resolutions for 2017

Joe Goldman

January 18, 2017

Before we get too much farther into January, I want to take a moment to wish everyone a Happy New Year on behalf of the Democracy Fund team.

I’ve always believed that developing resolutions for the new year is a powerful act of renewal and commitment. 2017 brings with it a wide range of challenges to our democracy that are deeply concerning. But it is also an opportunity for each of us to apply what we’ve learned from the past to our future plans and to recommit ourselves to those principles that we each hold most dear.

I hope you will consider joining me in making the following resolutions:

I will remember that while our democracy is resilient, it is more deeply vulnerable than many of us realized and requires constant vigilance.
I will seek to engage and understand people who anger me, rather than shaming and isolating them.
I will do my best to keep in mind that history is long and conditions change in unexpected ways (both for the good and bad).
I will remember that I have blind spots and that perceptions based on recent history may be wrong (especially in our new environment).
I will speak out when I see injustice and stand up for those who are targeted by bullies.
I will look to support efforts that are ambitious enough to make a difference, even if there is significant risk they may not succeed.
I will be unafraid to fail and will make every effort to learn from experiments that don’t work out.
I will remain committed to strengthening the core institutions and norms of our democracy.
I will maintain my confidence in the goodness and wisdom of the American people (even when it can be challenging to do so).

In times of uncertainty, the value of a strong community of diverse voices is clear. Discussing our values and concerns with trusted peers and reaching out beyond our immediate networks to hear new perspectives will help make our work to promote healthy democracy more effective.

At the Democracy Fund, our staff includes Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who are committed to working together to make our democracy work better. In 2016, we hired 10 new full time members of our staff – and as we look ahead to 2017, we are continuing to recruit for several open positions.

Today, I’m pleased to welcome five new leaders to our National Advisory Committee:

Anthea Watson Strong, a lead on the Civics team at Google, builds products that help decision makers govern more effectively, help people access public services more efficiently, and help users engage in the civic process.

Charles J. Sykes is one of the most influential conservatives in Wisconsin. The author of eight books, he is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, founder and editor in chief of the website Right Wisconsin, and is the editor of Wisconsin Interest magazine.

Geneva Overholser is an independent journalist and media critic in New York City. She is a former ombudsman for the Washington Post and editorial board member of the New York Times. Previously, she was editor of the Des Moines Register, where she led the paper to a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a researcher, pollster, and political analyst. She is a leading expert on the millennial generation and is author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up). In 2013, she was named one of TIME Magazine’s “Thirty Under 30 Changing The World.”

Sonal Shah is a global leader on social innovation policy, including impact investing, data and technology for social good, and civic engagement through government, business, philanthropy, and civil society. Previously, she founded the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation where she led the Obama Administration’s efforts to leverage technology and partnerships to solve some of the nation’s toughest challenges.

Please visit our About Us page to learn more about our team. Together, we are committed to finding achievable solutions to our nation’s biggest problems and will work to ensure that our political system is able to withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people in 2017 and beyond.

Back to Ideas

Facebook’s New Fact-Checking Partnership Is An Important Step Toward Fighting “Fake News”

Democracy Fund

December 15, 2016

WASHINGTON D.C. – In recent weeks, concerns about the rise and role of bogus information in public debate elevated the role of social media platforms as information intermediaries. In response to Facebook’s announcement of a new fact-checking partnership, Tom Glaisyer, Director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund, which has committed more than $3.5 million in fact-checking, released the following statement:

“Facebook’s new fact-checking partnership represents an important step toward addressing the risks posed by bogus information, or ‘fake news.’ It would be difficult to understate the critical role social platforms play in the media ecosystem today, and ensuring that media institutions are able to engage and inform the public is critical to the strength of our democracy.

“Citizens’ lack of trust in media and journalism is at the core of the current debate about bogus information, and we applaud Facebook’s commitment to build and experiment with new tools and functionality that give users independent, non-partisan information about the accuracy of articles and posts. In partnering with experienced and respected fact-checkers who are members of the International Fact-Checking Network – like the Associated Press, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, SNOPES, and ABC News – Facebook is working with journalists already on the forefront of regaining the public’s trust in media.

“Democracy Fund is a long-time investor in innovations around fact-checking, and we look forward to seeing how Facebook’s new tool, and others like it, can actively support informed civic engagement.”

Democracy Fund is committed to fighting deception and disinformation that prevents voters from making informed decisions at the ballot box. Our investments in fact-checking have included PolitiFact and research into the efficacy of fact-checking carried out by The American Press Institute.

***

Back to Ideas

Report

Progress Report on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Democracy Fund

September 1, 2016

The United States’ electoral system has always been imperfect — a work in progress. And yet the health of our democracy depends on the quality of our elections. All over the country, we entrust local officials to run elections as smoothly as possible. In fact, we depend on these officials to oversee more than 8,000 election jurisdictions nationwide — verifying the eligibility of voters, designing the ballots, and counting the votes.

The decentralized administration of elections means there are always new challenges to be addressed and new opportunities for improvement. It is for this reason that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) was established by an Executive Order on March 28, 2013, with the goal of confronting problems and institutionalizing processes that allow for improvement.

After an extensive six-month inquiry, the bipartisan PCEA, comprised of experts and practitioners, issued The American Voting Experience report, which stated: “the problems hindering efficient administration of elections are both identifiable and solvable.” In the report, members of the PCEA unanimously agreed on a set of best practices and recommendations they hoped would focus institutional energy on a select number of important policy changes, while spawning experimentation among the thousands of local officials who shared similar concerns.

This update highlights the progress made in several areas, since the reports release, notably in the areas of voter registration, access to voting, polling place management, and voting technology.

Back to Ideas

A Fresh Look for the Democracy Fund

Lauren Strayer

June 22, 2016

After five years of grantmaking and on our second anniversary as an independent foundation, the Democracy Fund has a fresh look and updated program names. We hope these exciting changes offer a clearer and more energetic window into who we are becoming and into our efforts to ensure the American people come first in our democracy.

At the Democracy Fund, we know we are one actor in a field of passionate and committed advocates, experts, peer funders, and elected officials who care about making our democracy work better. We believe that the issues we work on are part of complex systems in which efforts to create change will have ripple effects, some intended and some unexpected. Progress must be made through multi-pronged strategies that reinforce one another and are sustained over time. Like our founder, eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar, we hold a deep respect for the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Our republic has endured through periods of great stress in the past and we are confident that, with the dedication of committed Americans, our democracy will continue to rise to the occasion, solving the country’s most pressing challenges.

These beliefs, combined with our commitment to building bridges across partisan divides, are represented in our new logo’s forward-moving and alternating red, blue, and gray waves.

To date, we have committed more than $30 million in support of a healthy democracy. Our grantee partners range from the Bipartisan Policy Center and Pew Charitable Trusts to the Congressional Management Foundation, Cato, and Common Cause. We are humbled by the impactful and innovative work of our partners in each of our three core programs. We remain deeply committed to improving Congress, election administration, and local journalism, and today, we’re excited to share the new program names, which more transparently reflect the democratic values we strive promote:

Governance and Bipartisan Problem Solving is now Principled Leadership and Effective Governance. Led by Betsy Wright Hawkings, the Governance Program will continue to support approaches that help our elected leaders deliberate, negotiate, and serve the American people.
Responsive Politics is now Modern Elections and the Role of Money in Politics. Led by Adam Ambrogi, the Elections Program is working to advance bipartisan solutions that ensure the views and votes of the public come first in our democracy.
Informed Participation is now Vibrant Media and the Public Square. Led by Tom Glaisyer, the Public Square Program continues to support innovations and institutions that help people understand and participate in the democratic process.

We hope our new look and language reflect the Democracy Fund you have come to know, and we hope it makes our work as a foundation even more transparent over time.

Back to Ideas

New ‘Healthy Congress’ Report Shows Signs of Hope

Betsy Wright Hawkings

February 2, 2016

Just over 18 months ago, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published recommendations by its Commission on Political Reform (CPR) to address the hyper-partisanship characterizing American politics.

BPC initiated its Healthy Congress Index last year to measure progress on several key issues, including the number of days Congress spends in session; the openness of the Senate debate and amendment process; and the strength of “regular order” in the congressional committee process, floor debate, and conference committees.

This week—on the heels of the Republican congressional retreat designed to outline priorities and issues for the remainder of the 114th Congress—BPC released its latest quarterly assessment of Congress’s ability to effectively govern.

The diagnosis? There are signs of hope, but still too little function in the system.

Based on the metrics of the Index, even with the upheaval of a new Speaker, the 114th Congress has made some progress. The ability of committees to make policy and resolve differences has improved.

The number of days the House and Senate were in session fell short of the CPR’s recommendations and House Rules still allowed for fewer amendments to be offered, but the Senate spent more days working in Washington.

The Senate also considered many more amendments compared with recent years—bearing out Majority Leader McConnell’s stated desire to return to “regular order.”

At the recent GOP retreat, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader McConnell outlined their respective plans for the year. These included a more ambitious policy agenda on Ryan’s part, and a shared commitment by the two leaders to return to a more functional Congress—one that exercises its power of the purse on time in the annual appropriations process, conducts more effective oversight, and produces agreements on key legislation. These are also positive signs.

Time will tell whether they will be able to deliver—and whether we will continue to see progress in BPC’s “Healthy Congress” assessment—in the coming election year.

Back to Ideas

Guest Post: To Strengthen Democracy in America, Think Tech

Micah Sifry

January 5, 2016

A decade-and-a-half into the digital century, the vast majority of large foundations concerned with strengthening American democracy don’t seem to get tech. According to the new Foundation Funding for U.S. Democracy tool recently launched by Foundation Center, out of a total of 18,446 grants awarded since 2011 by more than 1,300 funders focused on the broad range of issues and efforts related to democracy, just 962 have been focused on technology.

What’s more, that represents only $215 million out of a total of $2.435 billion awarded to study and/or reform campaigns, elections, and voting systems; expand civic participation; research or upgrade government performance; and/or study the workings of the media and improve public access to media. The Foundation Center tool also reveals that the universe of foundations making technology-related grants is much smaller, at 186, than the overall funder pool, as is the recipient base.

I should note that the data in Foundation Funding for U.S. Democracy includes grantmaking by the thousand largest U.S. foundations and several hundred smaller funders. Because much of the data are drawn from IRS tax returns, there’s a considerable lag involved in the IRS making the returns available to Foundation Center. As a result, the data set is only complete through 2012. The fact that the $78 million awarded for technology funding in 2011 declined to $61 million in 2012 and $58 million in 2013 does not necessarily indicate a trend. New data will be added to the platform on a weekly basis, and the totals for 2013 and 2014 are likely to increase.

Still, there are a number of things to be learned from this interactive mapping tool about how the philanthropic sector views technology as a strategy for supporting U.S. democracy, especially compared to other strategies such as coalition-building, litigation, grassroots organizing, advocacy, research, and general/unrestricted support.

First, and most glaring, is the fact that, as late as 2012, the vast majority of foundations concerned with some aspect of democracy in the United States made no grants for technology. As my Civic Hall co-founder and colleague Andrew Rasiej likes to say, “Technology isn’t a piece of the pie, it’s the pan.” Apparently, most American foundations still think it’s just a slice of the larger picture rather than a set of tools and capacities that can change the whole landscape.

Second, of the 186 funders who understand the potential of technology to multiply the impact of their grantees’ efforts, just 17 are responsible for half the total number of grants included in the data set. They include many names familiar to anyone who has tried to raise money for nonprofit tech work: Ford, Knight, the California Endowment, Open Society, Gates, Irvine, the Comcast Foundation, Sloan, Omidyar Network, McCormick, Kellogg, Levi Strauss, MacArthur, Surdna, VOQAL, and Hewlett. Six of them — Knight, Ford, Gates, Omidyar, the California Endowment, and Sloan — provide more than half of the money tracked, which means many grantees could be thrown for a loop if any one of those six decided to sunset or stop funding tech. At the same time, many other high-profile funders allocate relatively small amounts to tech-related grantmaking.

The failure of most American foundations to add technology to their grant portfolios is surprising, especially this far along in the digital age. I suspect it’s because many foundations are still averse to new approaches, viewing them as risky and unproven. That said, tech-savvy foundations have a lot to be proud of. Support for projects like Creative Commons, the Sunlight Foundation, Code for America, the Center for Civic Media at MIT, the Voting Information Project, Patients Like Me, the Citizen Engagement Lab, and Democracy Works/TurboVote has paid huge benefits, fostering a worldwide ecosystem of shareable knowledge, a burgeoning open data movement, the launch of the U.S. Digital Service, the creation of online digital movements engaging millions of active participants, and the provision of timely voter registration and polling place information to tens of millions of people. Our democracy is measurably stronger because many more people and organizations have greater and more affordable access to the political process as a result.

Recently, a number of major foundations — Knight, Open Society, MacArthur, and Ford — announced the Netgain Challenge, a major new commitment to support the open Internet. It’s great they’re doing this, but they are all among the usual forward-thinking foundations you’d expect to be involved in such an effort. While I applaud their vision and intent, I also believe it’s long past time for some of the other heavy-hitters in the sector to step up, stop editing risk out of their portfolios, and make some big bets on tech.

Micah Sifry is the co-founder and executive director of Civic Hall, a community center for civc tech based in New York City and a Democracy Fund Grantee. This is a repost of the second in a series of ten posts on the Foundation Center’s Foundation Funding for U.S. Democracy tool, of which the Democracy Fund is a supporter.

Back to Ideas

Updates from Governance

Betsy Wright Hawkings

December 11, 2015

For the past 11 months, the Democracy Fund’s Governance Program has been working to develop new approaches to understanding our nation’s system of governance and the forces of hyperpartisanship that currently render that system asymmetrical and dysfunctional.

Nearly one year on, I can say the opportunity to work with a group of people truly committed to representing all sides of the political spectrum has been remarkable and educational beyond anything I could have imagined.

The chance to put a quarter century of experience to use in more deeply understanding the system of Congress – – and where the greatest opportunities for leverage to reduce dysfunction existed – – has been unique.

The space to build a team within the governance program of individuals equally committed to the more effective functioning of government has been rewarding.

And the ability to create collaborations among existing organizations, help new innovative organizations expand, and encourage them all to develop collective impact in the space has been truly energizing.

Among the key challenges we have faced has been developing a strategy that reflects our knowledge and our values while continuing our grantmaking practice in an effort to impact the urgent challenges we hope to address. Described fondly within Democracy Fund as “building the plane while flying it,” we are grateful to have both metaphorically experienced pilots and mechanics on board to help us stay in the air. This infrastructure has enabled the Governance team to support our colleagues by attracting partners that reflect the ideological diversity of the American people, as reflected in their elected officials; develop and support new programs to help build relationships among members of Congress and their staffs; develop technology to enhance congressional constituent engagement systems, identify best practices and train congressional offices to more fully utilize them; and create strategies to advance efforts to “fix Washington” by creating more open and accessible legislative processes, all while developing and refining our strategic plan.

Looking forward to the next year, the governance program is asking itself some hard questions. Specifically: how can we build on our existing work to not just support existing organizations, but incentivize them to evermore groundbreaking work? How can we continue to support the institution of Congress, by strengthening it’s operating systems and processes, as well as the ability of those who work in Congress to use those systems more effectively? And, How can we incentivize government officials, specifically members of Congress, to behave in ways that increase the functionality of government, support bipartisan working relationships, and reward civility?

We know the answers aren’t easy. But we’ve known that all along. It took us a generation to achieve this state of dysfunction; it will take more than a year to fulfill the democracy fund’s mission of increasing engagement, strengthening the integrity of our elections, and improving the functionality of our government. And after all, the essence of systems thinking is that with so many variables, and so many interrelationships, the system is constantly changing and the work is never really done.

But in the Democracy Fund we have an organization that is attempting to not only talk the walk talk, but walk the walk – – of fly the plane—in our teams, in the larger organization, and in the field we are seeking to build as we work to strengthen our system of government.

All in all, a pretty good year, and even more exciting learning to look forward to.

Back to Ideas

New Research Reveals Stark Local News Gaps in New Jersey

Tom Glaisyer

August 6, 2015

At the Democracy Fund, we seek to foster a more informed and active electorate by providing voters with the information, opportunities for engagement, and skills they need to make informed choices. A particular focus of this work has been to build up journalism at the local and state house level, and we have supported the Institute for Nonprofit News nationally and more recently the News Voices Project in New Jersey with an objective strengthening news provision at the local level. The latter with the specific objective of collaborations between newsrooms and communities.

We also realize we don’t yet have a full picture of the state of journalism at the city level and that motivated us to support the new research published today by Rutgers University regarding the level of news provision in three New Jersey Communities. From the release:

In “Assessing the Health of Local Journalism Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis of Three New Jersey Communities,” researchers examined the journalistic infrastructure, output, and performance in the New Jersey communities of Newark, New Brunswick, and Morristown.

The research, supported by the Democracy Fund, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, and Knight Foundation, indicates substantial differences in the volume and quality of reporting. Low income communities saw less coverage than higher income neighboring cities.

In Newark, with a population of 277,000 and a per capita income of $13,009, there are only 0.55 sources of news for every 10,000 people. Whereas, in New Brunswick, with a population of 55,000 and a per capita income of $16,395, there are 2.18 news sources for every 10,000 people. But the differences are most stark in comparison to Morristown, which has a population of 18,000 and a per capita income of $37,573 but 6.11 news sources for every 10,000 people.

These pronounced differences in the availability of sources of journalism were then reflected in how much journalism was produced within these three communities:

Morristown residents received 23 times more news stories and 20 times more social media posts from their local journalism sources per 10,000 capita than Newark residents, and 2.5 times more news stories and 3.4 times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than New Brunswick residents.

New Brunswick residents received 9.3 times more news stories and six times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than Newark residents.

Similar differences across the three communities often persisted when the researchers focused on aspects of the quality of local journalism, such as the extent to which the stories were original (rather than repostings or links to other sources); the extent to which the stories were about the local community; and the extent to which the stories addressed critical information needs, such as education, health, and civic and political life.

Professor Phillip Napoli, the lead author, said, “If journalism and access to information are pillars of self government then these findings suggest those tools of democracy are not being distributed evenly, and that should be cause for concern.”

A study of three communities is not conclusive, and over time we hope that this report will be supplemented by an analysis of a larger number of communities and complemented by others that use complementary research methodologies. That said, we believe the results published today will aid us as we consider how we approach our work and help inform the work of others. As we think further about this we welcome comments below from journalists and others who are at the coalface at this transitional moment.

Back to Ideas

Introducing the News Voices New Jersey Project

Karla McLean

August 5, 2015

“What happens to our communities when quality journalism diminishes or disappears altogether?” The News Voices: Free Press New Jersey project, supported by the Democracy Fund and the Dodge Foundation, seeks to address this question through “a bold effort to build meaningful relationships between local newsrooms and their communities [and] to create a collaborative network of people invested in the future of local news toward vibrant inclusive communities.” This innovative project is led by Fiona Morgan and Mike Rispoli of Free Press.

News Voices will build a network of residents, civic leaders, journalists, and academics to advocate for quality and sustainable journalism. Essentially, the project harnesses the people power of New Jersey “to foster better local journalism.”

The News Voices project proposes that the current landscape of journalism requires focusing on saving traditional outlets including newspapers while adopting new technology. However, this initiative focuses on the purposes of journalism: holding the powerful accountable, informing audiences, and acting in the public interest.

Free Press has chosen to pilot this program in New Jersey because the state’s close proximity to the New York and Philadelphia media markets. As Free Press points out “If New Jersey were its own market, it would be the fourth largest in the country.” This proximity has often led to the overshadowing of New Jersey’s local issues within news within outlets based in other states but having audiences in New Jersey. As startup journalism communities within the state grow they continue to focus on nonprofit and for-profit online new organizations and experimenting social media platforms. News Voices New Jersey “want[s] to bring together people from a variety of backgrounds, with shared interests, to make our communities and local news institutions stronger.”

We at the Democracy Fund continue to be interested in bringing newsrooms and a renewed focus on local communities into the public dialogue. News Voices is also looking for additional voices from journalists and the community to highlight topical issues for local journalism. You can join the News Voices: New Jersey project by emailing Mike Rispoli at mrispoli@freepress.net.

Back to Ideas

Guest Post: New API Research shows Growth of Fact Checking and Partisan Challenges

Jane Elizabeth

April 22, 2015

This is cross-posted from the American Press Institute. View a full version with charts here and read more about the Democracy Fund’s support of fact checking here.

The amount of fact-checking journalism produced in the United States is increasing dramatically, and while there are limits to its persuasiveness, it is a measurably effective tool for correcting political misinformation among voters, according to new scholarly research conducted for the American Press Institute and released today.

The number of fact-check stories in the U.S. news media increased by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012, one of the studies found. That accelerates the growth in fact-checking journalism found in the prior national election cycle.

Fact-checking journalism also succeeds in increasing voter knowledge, according to controlled experiments with audiences.

“Fact-checking journalism is growing rapidly but is still relatively rare and heavily concentrated among outlets with dedicated fact checkers,” said the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler, one of the scholars engaged in the research.

The three studies released today, conducted by scholars at six universities, build on existing research and constitute the most comprehensive effort to date examining the work of journalists to police political rhetoric.

Among some of the other findings:

More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking.
Fact-checking is equally persuasive whether or not it uses a “rating scale” to summarize its findings.
Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are more persuasive when the consumer and the politician belong to the same political party.
Democrats, in general, have a more favorable view of and are somewhat more persuaded by fact-checking journalism than Republicans.

The results released today are part of a series commissioned through API’s Fact-Checking Project, an initiative to examine and improve fact-checking in journalism. The program is funded by the Democracy Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation.

The Growth of Fact-Checking

By several measures fact-checking is growing. In the study of the frequency of fact-checking — either original fact-checks or stories about such work — the number of fact-checking stories increased by more than 50 percent from 2004 to 2008 and by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012. The growth occurred mostly at 11 newspapers that partnered with PolitiFact, one of the country’s most prominent fact-checking organizations, but the number of such stories also more than doubled between 2008 and 2012 at media outlets unaffiliated with PolitiFact.

The findings on the growth in fact-checking are reinforced by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University, which found that the number of fully active fact-checking organizations in North America increased from 15 in April 2014 to 22 in January 2015.

The API study, authored by Lucas Graves at the University of Wisconsin, Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth College and Reifler, also explored what conditions encourage more fact-checking journalism to occur. The researchers found that reporters who are reminded of fact-checking’s journalistic value produce significantly more fact-checking stories than those who are not reminded. Yet, the study found, reminding reporters that readers like fact-checking did not have a statistically significant effect.

Fact-checking and consumer knowledge

A second study, also by Nyhan and Reifler, found that more than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking journalism.

But there are some partisan differences in public perceptions of the practice: Republicans don’t view fact-checking journalism as favorably as Democrats do, especially among people with high levels of political knowledge.

Americans also appear to learn from fact-checks written by journalists, the study found. Knowledge of relevant facts increased by 11 percentage points among people who were randomly exposed to a series of fact-checks during the 2014 election, compared to a control group. In general, the study found, fact-checks are more effective among people who already have higher levels of political knowledge.

The study is the first randomized controlled trial estimating the effects of exposure to fact checking over time.

‘Pants on Fire’ Optional

Another of the studies examined the effectiveness of “rating scales” in fact-checking journalism. This research, conducted by Michelle A. Amazeen of Rider University, with Graves, Emily Thorson of George Washington University, and Ashley Muddiman of the University of Wyoming, found that a fact check is an effective tool for correcting political misinformation, whether or not it employs a “rating scale.” When given a choice, however, readers selected a fact check with a rating scale.

Such ratings are used by fact-checking organizations such the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, which uses a Pinocchio scale, and PolitiFact, whose Truth-O-Meter includes the well-known “Pants on Fire” rating.

Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are less persuasive when the reader and politician belongs to opposite political parties, the researchers found. These readers tend to think the opposing party politician’s statement was false, even before they read the correction. For this reason, political fact-checking may be of particular benefit during primary contests, according to the authors, although fact-checking currently is more likely to occur during general election cycles than in primaries.

The study also found that a non-political correction — in this case, regarding a statement made by a breakfast cereal company official — was more effective when a rating scale was added to the text.

The Future of Fact-Checking

Overall the studies suggest that fact-checking is achieving its core aim: countering the spread of political misinformation. And the public largely appreciates this work.

“The results suggest that corrections of misinformation do help people to more accurately understand the world around them,” Amazeen said.

Reifler added, “In short, people like fact-checking and it appears to help them become better informed.”

Read the full studies here:

The Growth of Fact Checking

Estimating Fact-Checking’s Effects

The Effectiveness of Rating Scales

In the coming weeks, API will publish more findings from its fact-checking research, including the prevalence of misinformation on Twitter and a report by journalist Mark Stencel examining the impact of fact-checking on the behavior of those in the political arena.