Why does fact-checking actually work?

The disadvantages of a fact-check as a format (not as an in-house editorial work) often include its reactivity. Working well in the field of debunking myths and established misconceptions, the fact-check is not so effective in the news sphere, since even the most quickly made fact-check, due to different conditions, cannot become more popular than the disinformation "news" message that it debunks. 

The obstacles are simple:

— at the time of writing this post, there are only 120 fact-checking editorial boards in the world that work strictly according to the standard, on average there are ten fact-checkers in such an editorial board, and there are practically no budgets for content promotion;

— a little more than a thousand people cannot, no matter how hard they try, refute terabytes of disinformation stories, even in 5-10 of the most popular languages in the world;

— neutrality and rationality are poorly "sold" to the mass reader, the fact-checker is almost always at a loss in terms of coverage in front of a conspiracy theorist;

— priority of transparency and evidence over the speed of reaction. 

The question of speed is generally solved, but for the sake of accuracy, few people work at speed from fact-checkers (a funny ambiguity, of course, but I'll leave it), plus speed is often a minus to details and details. 

So why do we (researchers, media literacy trainers, fact-checkers) say that fact-checking is effective? Because fact-checking does not work entirely inside the mediasphere but adheres to the mediasphere, and solves other tasks. 

In 2017, in the first article devoted to the theoretical problem of fact-checking as a format (part of the article is still relevant, although the infodemic has changed the media space quite a lot), Tasha Sokolova and I rather narrowly considered fact-checking as part of the fight against disinformation almost exclusively in the mediasphere However, the format design itself implies a meta-level. 

Fact-checking always guides the reader through the methodology and sources, showing how a false story is made or how to find reliable evidence. And this is the main task. The task is not to prove that a statement is true or false. Fact-checking opposes not the pieces of disinformation, but methods of disinformation. 

That is why the format is not transcendental to the reader, every time offering him to learn the tools. Learn the method. And if we accept this as a value and an indicator, then the format is successful despite obstacles. 

Could it be more successful? Yes. Working further.