facts of any given matter is to fact-check the information provided. There are many services and websites solely dedicated to the correction of misinformation, basing judgment upon fact rather than feeling. Politifact has been one of the most dominant fact-checking forces and has been able to find success on social networks and online web browsers, especially during the 2016 election cycle. Because many younger American voters consume their media online and via social media, accessing this demographic on those media was the best step Politifact could take in expanding its educational reach. This worked in favor of the non-partisan company and ultimately helped generate further awareness of what good fact-checking should look like. Their track record and reputation suffered no major setbacks throughout 2016 thanks in part to the creativity of accessing their audiences properly. Beyond the track record of a credible fact-checking company is their current effort to maintain the truth for the sake of properly informing the public. An example of their innovation during this cycle that was filled with a multiplicity of false claims was a Google Chrome extension internet users could install to assist them while watching the debates that would provide seemingly live fact-checks to statements and claims made during the debates. In addition to being creative with the education of the American voter on the words and actions of public figures and politicians, a
good fact-checking service must also be nondiscriminatory in its operation. This is where being non-partisan becomes so important, because it does lend further credibility to the reputation of a company covering both sides of an election cycle. Regardless of whether a fact-checker is left-leaning or right-leaning, the problem often encountered is an imbalance of coverage. Oftentimes a left-leaning checker will opt to more closely inspect the politicians who ideologically lean to the right and vice versa for a right-leaning checker. This is where confirmation bias not only affects the American population, but also the reporters in how they handle a situation. This quantitative imbalance has the potential to skew the perception of the audience, because from a logical sense if a person is only told the other side is wrong and false, then said person could blindly have total faith in their party affiliation instead of questioning both sides equally. Partisan fact-checking services are not bad by any means, but they do pose a threat to the standard of fair and balanced coverage, which again rests at the foundation of a preferred fact-checker. In his 2014 dissertation, Dr. Brian Weeks, professor of philosophy at Ohio State University, says feelings are able to be replaced with the cold hard facts by good fact-checking. The majority of the American population remains true to their values after they reach mature adulthood in their early 20s and have
Fact-checking must become as integral to journalism as breathing oxygen is to staying alive."
32 | Pursuit
had the time to assess where they rest on the political spectrum. Weeks says skepticism will often meet a fact that challenges someone’s firm beliefs. However, over the right amount of time with the necessary amount of information on the part of media sources and fact-checking services, those walls can be hurdled and factchecking can do what it is intended to do — set the record straight. Fact-checking must become as integral to journalism as breathing oxygen is to staying alive. Without evidence and proof, speculation should not be given the time of day for the sake of keeping American media consumers away