This serves as a summary of my views on the decision of Facebook to get Rappler and Vera Files as third-party fact-checkers in order to prevent the spread of “fake news” through the social media platform. When I was interviewed this morning (April 16) by television station TV5 and radio stations DZMM, Bombo Radyo-Bacolod and Radyo Singko, there were several questions asked on the nature of fact-checking. This is an attempt to summarize the points I raised.
Is fact-checking tantamount to censorship?
No. In journalism, fact-checking is part of gatekeeping. As regards the gatekeeping process, journalists try their best to live up to one of the five principles of journalism which is truth-telling. (The other four principles as explained by Lambeth are justice, fairness, humaneness and stewardship.)
Truth-telling ensures accuracy in news reports. In particular, journalists look for factual accuracy and contextual accuracy. Aside from Lambeth, feel free to read the works of McQuail, Teodoro and Santos if you want to know more about the normative standards of journalism.
In the context of fact-checking, we may consider gatekeeping as a way for editors to assess the correctness of the information. Some news media organizations (especially those based in the US), for example, hire research editors whose job is to ensure the high quality of research in a journalistic output.
Of course, there’s a caveat to this discussion as gatekeeping is vulnerable to abuse and misuse. It’s even possible for certain individuals and interest groups to hide behind terms like “fact-checking” to engage in prior restraint and censorship. If we want to focus on a social media platform like Facebook, this happens when the parameters for blocking certain websites are not clear (e.g., a website providing accurate information is banned for espousing an ideology that’s diametrically opposed to the supposed gatekeepers).
Doesn’t fact-checking violate freedom of expression?
Freedom of expression (or even freedom of the press for that matter) is not absolute. The limitations to the exercise of our freedom are defined by two things: (1) the laws; and (2) the professional and ethical standards.
The laws are usually mandatory (even if history has shown that there are laws that abridge our basic freedoms and must therefore be opposed). The standards, on the other hand, are inherently voluntary so self-regulation is the key to ensuring that the highest professional and ethical standards are met.
In this context, fact-checking becomes a way to ensure that our freedom is exercised responsively and responsibly.
Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?
That would be you and me and perhaps other concerned news media organizations (assuming that the latter would not think twice about calling out each other in terms of inaccurate reportage).
But to ensure that we can all fact-check properly the fact-checkers, there is a need for media literacy. We need it to know the workings of the press, particularly the nature of truth-telling and how it helps in the shaping of public opinion.
Through media literacy, audiences would be in a much better position to engage in media criticism. If Rappler and Vera Files commit any errors in fact-checking, concerned citizens would be able to point them out and engage in a high level of discourse.