Of Fact-checking and Balance

The problem of balance is the most difficult in the fact-checker's work. Let me tell you why. The media sphere is global, but there are significant differences in what kind of fakes are spread in a particular region and language. For example, in a country with a strong presence of right-wing communities, it is more likely that fakes about Kamala Harris will be more viral than fakes about Donald Trump. Pro-Palestinian fakes are more likely to be widespread in regions with a strong left-wing and Islamic influence. But in conservative Christian countries, pro-Israeli fakes are more likely to be viral.

My team (Provereno) is “lucky” in the last two examples, as the number of disinformation narratives and fakes from both sides is approximately equal in our segment, and it is difficult to accuse us of bias. The word “lucky” is in quotation marks, because the Arab-Israeli conflict strongly polarizes very different societies: you either stand for Israel, which means it's okay to lie for Israel, or you stand for Palestine, which means everything that you do against Israel is good, even if it's a lie or fake. In this situation, fact-checkers are villains for both sides. We are called "anti-Semites", “leftists”, and "fascists" at the same time. We are accused by both sides of supporting terrorism and genocide, as you can imagine. But we are just doing our job by the rules accepted by the international community.

Kazakhstani fact-checkers are also “lucky”. Well, pro-Israeli fakes do not come in Kazakhstan, there is almost no big audience for them. The principles of selection of claims for verification stipulate the virality of content where the editorial staff works. In this situation, Factcheck.kz has to work with viral pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic narratives. That's where hate for fact-checkers comes from — from the polarized people who want to see the world in binary oppositions. Black and white. Good and evil.

Let's return to the problem of balance. It is necessary to solve it somehow. But when we think about equal representation of all fake narratives, we can not dig out and debunk fakes shared by one and a half users. That will be a violation of basic principles of fact-checking, and pushing the Baader-Meinhof effect. The most likely solution in such situations is to write analytic reviews of narratives that are problematic in terms of balance. That could be helpful to show a complete picture and explain why these fake narratives are viral here and now and why opposite narratives are not.

It won't get rid of the hate. Fact-checkers will always be a subject of hatred in situations where society is polarized about some fact of reality, because rational thinking, the desire for objectivity and completeness of knowledge, and polar positions are incompatible. But this is an opportunity to give a more complete picture to those ready to understand. And this is one of the main tasks in our profession.