tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/factchecking-23173/articlesFactchecking – The Conversation2023-11-09T13:35:21Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168812023-11-09T13:35:21Z2023-11-09T13:35:21ZPeople dig deeper to fact-check social media posts when paired with someone who doesn’t share their perspective – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/557913/original/file-20231106-17-n1jqco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=83%2C114%2C6532%2C4511&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Joining up with someone who holds a different perspective influences your take on online posts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-woman-using-mobile-phone-in-the-coffee-shop-royalty-free-image/1470012550">Frazao Studio Latino/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>People fact-checked social media posts more carefully and were more willing to revise their initial beliefs when they were paired with someone from a different cultural background than their own, according to a study my collaborators <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YtF6xwMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Michael Baker</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FOyLCpwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Françoise Détienne</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2W7uROIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> recently published in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1295130/abstract">Frontiers in Psychology</a>.</p>
<p>If you’re French, you’re less likely than an English person to believe a tweet that claims Britain produces <a href="https://x.com/thetimes/status/758297392533889025?s=20">more varieties of cheese</a> than France. And if you’re English, you’re more likely than a French person to believe a tweet that claims only <a href="https://x.com/TheLocalFrance/status/603789583470469120?s=20">43% of French people shower daily</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"758297392533889025"}"></div></p>
<p>More intriguingly, when pairs of English and French people fact-checked such tweets together, how they did so and the extent to which they revised their initial beliefs depended on whether they were “matched” or “mismatched” for cultural identity. We found French-French and English-English pairs focused on confirming evidence and stuck to their initial beliefs, whereas English-French pairs engaged in deeper searches and revised their beliefs in line with evidence.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/i-went-down-the-rabbit-hole-to-debunk-misinformation-heres-what-i-learned-about-big-ben-and-online-information-overload-154923">Misinformation on social media</a> is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It contributes to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586">political polarization</a>, affects people’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008">voting, vaccination and recycling</a> behavior, and is often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y">believed long after it’s been corrected</a>.</p>
<p>In recent weeks, misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war has reached <a href="https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-influential-accounts-hamas-israel/">unprecedented levels</a> and is fanning ethnic, religious and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-17/israel-hamas-war-is-stoking-tensions-in-europe-where-communities-are-on-edge#xj4y7vzkg">political tensions worldwide</a> – including on <a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-college-free-speech-543aff623d5f54ad6529fe598ae48271">U.S. campuses</a>. </p>
<p>To address the misinformation challenge, researchers need to understand better how people process online information. In addition to contributing to such understanding, our findings suggest that bringing together people from opposing sides to fact-check contentious social media posts might improve their media literacy and their ability to engage in civil discourse.</p>
<p>Bringing together people from opposing sides of a conflict to jointly fact-check social media posts isn’t likely to be easy. In times like these, it’s hard even to get them into the same room to speak directly to each other rather than <a href="https://twitter.com/ZZZZZZZZZZZack/status/1714755322798117269">hurling slogans</a> – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/nyregion/columbia-university-israel-hamas-protests.html">and worse</a> – at each other. Nevertheless, because publicly funded educational institutions are committed to promoting informed debate and preparing the nation’s future citizens, my colleagues and I believe they remain some of the most <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/10/20/campus-leaders-promote-open-dialogue-israel-hamas-war">promising places to try</a> this approach.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>In future studies, we plan to focus on topics that are more controversial than cheese or personal hygiene to see whether the moderating effect of mismatched pairs still applies.</p>
<p>For example, we could present Israeli and Palestinian pairs with social media posts about the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion">explosion at the al-Ahli hospital on Oct. 27, 2023</a> - an event so contentious that The New York Times is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/briefing/gaza-hospital-explosion.html">still struggling to explain</a> its <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/23/gaza-hospital-new-york-times-00122986">initial attribution</a> of the explosion to an Israeli bomb rather than an Islamic Jihad missile.</p>
<p>Observing how matched and mismatched pairs fact-check such posts would shed light on how a tweet’s contentiousness affects people’s ability to fact-check it effectively. In particular, when the stakes are higher with regard to people’s identities, do mismatched pairs still outperform matched pairs, or does the content’s contentiousness obstruct effective collaboration?</p>
<h2>How we do our work</h2>
<p>Much misinformation research has focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100460">who believes it</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559">how it spreads</a>. Few studies have examined the actual <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104395">processes by which people assess</a> what they read online.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"603789583470469120"}"></div></p>
<p>Our approach to studying people’s deliberations about online information is to create experimental situations in which such deliberations are natural and observable. In this study, we designed a novel research setup based on the fact that sharing and discussing social media posts with others is an everyday activity.</p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take on interesting academic work.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eli Gottlieb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new study unexpectedly found a way to help people assess social media posts with less bias and more care – pairing them up with partners who have a different perspective.Eli Gottlieb, Senior Fellow in Education and Human Development, George Washington UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2048972023-05-24T12:18:44Z2023-05-24T12:18:44ZChatGPT and other generative AI could foster science denial and misunderstanding – here’s how you can be on alert<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527865/original/file-20230523-27149-c2x3lt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5529%2C3821&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Approach all information with some initial skepticism.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/worried-young-man-sitting-on-a-pouf-working-on-the-royalty-free-image/1470667133">Guillermo Spelucin/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until very recently, if you wanted to know more about a controversial scientific topic – stem cell research, the safety of nuclear energy, climate change – you probably did a Google search. Presented with multiple sources, you chose what to read, selecting which sites or authorities to trust.</p>
<p>Now you have another option: You can pose your question to ChatGPT or another generative artificial intelligence platform and quickly receive a succinct response in paragraph form.</p>
<p>ChatGPT does not search the internet the way Google does. Instead, it generates responses to queries by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/07/ai-beginners-guide/">predicting likely word combinations</a> from a massive amalgam of available online information.</p>
<p>Although it has the potential for <a href="https://hbr.org/podcast/2023/05/how-generative-ai-changes-productivity">enhancing productivity</a>, generative AI has been shown to have some major faults. It can <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-platforms-like-chatgpt-are-easy-to-use-but-also-potentially-dangerous/">produce misinformation</a>. It can create “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/business/ai-chatbots-hallucination.html">hallucinations</a>” – a benign term for making things up. And it doesn’t always accurately solve reasoning problems. For example, when asked if both a car and a tank can fit through a doorway, it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/technology/openai-new-gpt4.html">failed to consider both width and height</a>. Nevertheless, it is already being used to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/01/17/cnet-ai-articles-journalism-corrections/">produce articles</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/technology/ai-generated-content-discovered-on-news-sites-content-farms-and-product-reviews.html">website content</a> you may have encountered, or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/opinion/chatgpt-journalism.html">as a tool</a> in the writing process. Yet you are unlikely to know if what you’re reading was created by AI.</p>
<p>As the authors of “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/science-denial-9780197683330">Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It</a>,” we are concerned about how generative AI may blur the boundaries between truth and fiction for those seeking authoritative scientific information.</p>
<p>Every media consumer needs to be more vigilant than ever in verifying scientific accuracy in what they read. Here’s how you can stay on your toes in this new information landscape.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="glowing purple points connected by blue lines" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Based on all the data points it ingests, an AI platform uses predictive algorithms to produce answers to queries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/abstract-technology-3d-background-with-neon-glowing-royalty-free-image/1424551670">Cobalt88/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How generative AI could promote science denial</h2>
<p><strong>Erosion of epistemic trust</strong>. All consumers of science information depend on judgments of scientific and medical experts. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.971907">Epistemic trust</a> is the process of trusting knowledge you get from others. It is fundamental to the understanding and use of scientific information. Whether someone is seeking information about a health concern or trying to understand solutions to climate change, they often have limited scientific understanding and little access to firsthand evidence. With a rapidly growing body of information online, people must make frequent decisions about what and whom to trust. With the increased use of generative AI and the potential for manipulation, we believe trust is likely to erode further than <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/">it already has</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Misleading or just plain wrong</strong>. If there are errors or biases in the data on which AI platforms are trained, that <a href="https://theconversation.com/ai-information-retrieval-a-search-engine-researcher-explains-the-promise-and-peril-of-letting-chatgpt-and-its-cousins-search-the-web-for-you-200875">can be reflected in the results</a>. In our own searches, when we have asked ChatGPT to regenerate multiple answers to the same question, we have gotten conflicting answers. Asked why, it responded, “Sometimes I make mistakes.” Perhaps the trickiest issue with AI-generated content is knowing when it is wrong.</p>
<p><strong>Disinformation spread intentionally</strong>. AI can be used to generate compelling disinformation as text as well as deepfake images and videos. When we asked ChatGPT to “<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-platforms-like-chatgpt-are-easy-to-use-but-also-potentially-dangerous/">write about vaccines in the style of disinformation</a>,” it produced a nonexistent citation with fake data. Geoffrey Hinton, former head of AI development at Google, quit to be free to sound the alarm, saying, “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html">using it for bad things</a>.” The potential to create and spread deliberately incorrect information about science already existed, but it is now dangerously easy. </p>
<p><strong>Fabricated sources</strong>. ChatGPT provides responses with no sources at all, or if asked for sources, may present <a href="https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2023/01/21/chatgpt-cites-economics-papers-that-do-not-exist/">ones it made up</a>. We both asked ChatGPT to generate a list of our own publications. We each identified a few correct sources. More were hallucinations, yet seemingly reputable and mostly plausible, with actual previous co-authors, in similar sounding journals. This inventiveness is a big problem if a list of a scholar’s publications conveys authority to a reader who doesn’t take time to verify them. </p>
<p><strong>Dated knowledge</strong>. ChatGPT doesn’t know what happened in the world after its training concluded. A query on what percentage of the world has had COVID-19 returned an answer prefaced by “as of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021.” Given how rapidly knowledge advances in some areas, this limitation could mean readers get erroneous outdated information. If you’re seeking recent research on a personal health issue, for instance, beware. </p>
<p><strong>Rapid advancement and poor transparency</strong>. AI systems continue to become <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html">more powerful and learn faster</a>, and they may learn more science misinformation along the way. Google recently announced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/technology/google-ai-products.html">25 new embedded uses of AI in its services</a>. At this point, <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulating-ai-3-experts-explain-why-its-difficult-to-do-and-important-to-get-right-198868">insufficient guardrails are in place</a> to assure that generative AI will become a more accurate purveyor of scientific information over time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman looks confused taking notes on paper looking at laptop" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Be ready to look beyond your ChatGPT request.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/senior-woman-using-laptop-and-making-notes-royalty-free-image/991999284">10'000 Hours/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>If you use ChatGPT or other AI platforms, recognize that they might not be completely accurate. The burden falls to the user to discern accuracy.</p>
<p><strong>Increase your vigilance</strong>. <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/12/ai-will-start-fact-checking-we-may-not-like-the-results/">AI fact-checking apps may be available soon</a>, but for now, users must serve as their own fact-checkers. <a href="https://www.nsta.org/science-teacher/science-teacher-januaryfebruary-2023/plausible">There are steps we recommend</a>. The first is: Be vigilant. People often reflexively share information found from searches on social media with little or no vetting. Know when to become more deliberately thoughtful and when it’s worth identifying and evaluating sources of information. If you’re trying to decide how to manage a serious illness or to understand the best steps for addressing climate change, take time to vet the sources.</p>
<p><strong>Improve your fact-checking</strong>. A second step is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740">lateral reading</a>, a process professional fact-checkers use. Open a new window and search for <a href="https://www.nsta.org/science-teacher/science-teacher-mayjune-2023/marginalizing-misinformation">information about the sources</a>, if provided. Is the source credible? Does the author have relevant expertise? And what is the consensus of experts? If no sources are provided or you don’t know if they are valid, use a traditional search engine to find and evaluate experts on the topic. </p>
<p><strong>Evaluate the evidence</strong>. Next, take a look at the evidence and its connection to the claim. Is there evidence that genetically modified foods are safe? Is there evidence that they are not? What is the scientific consensus? Evaluating the claims will take effort beyond a quick query to ChatGPT.</p>
<p><strong>If you begin with AI, don’t stop there</strong>. Exercise caution in using it as the sole authority on any scientific issue. You might see what ChatGPT has to say about genetically modified organisms or vaccine safety, but also follow up with a more diligent search using traditional search engines before you draw conclusions. </p>
<p><strong>Assess plausibility</strong>. Judge whether the claim is plausible. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.001">Is it likely to be true</a>? If AI makes an implausible (and inaccurate) statement like “<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/12/23/fact-check-false-claim-covid-19-vaccines-caused-1-1-million-deaths/10929679002/">1 million deaths were caused by vaccines, not COVID-19</a>,” consider if it even makes sense. Make a tentative judgment and then be open to revising your thinking once you have checked the evidence.</p>
<p><strong>Promote digital literacy in yourself and others</strong>. Everyone needs to up their game. <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-be-a-good-digital-citizen-during-the-election-and-its-aftermath-148974">Improve your own digital literacy</a>, and if you are a parent, teacher, mentor or community leader, promote digital literacy in others. The American Psychological Association provides guidance on <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/social-media-literacy-teens">fact-checking online information</a> and recommends teens be <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use">trained in social media skills</a> to minimize risks to health and well-being. <a href="https://newslit.org/">The News Literacy Project</a> provides helpful tools for improving and supporting digital literacy.</p>
<p>Arm yourself with the skills you need to navigate the new AI information landscape. Even if you don’t use generative AI, it is likely you have already read articles created by it or developed from it. It can take time and effort to find and evaluate reliable information about science online – but it is worth it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204897/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gale Sinatra receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara K. Hofer has received funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Generative AIs may make up information they serve you, meaning they may potentially spread science misinformation. Here’s how to check the accuracy of what you read in an AI-enhanced media landscape.Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern CaliforniaBarbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1433522020-08-11T20:08:47Z2020-08-11T20:08:47ZCoronavirus misinformation is a global issue, but which myth you fall for likely depends on where you live<p>In February, major social media platforms attended a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-technology/white-house-to-meet-large-tech-companies-to-discuss-ways-to-control-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN20X3CH">meeting hosted by the World Health Organisation</a> to address coronavirus misinformation. The aim was to catalyse the fight against what the United Nations has called an “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19">infodemic</a>”. </p>
<p>Usually, misinformation is focused on specific regions and topics. But COVID-19 is different. For what seems like the first time, both misinformation and fact-checking behaviours are coordinated around a common set of narratives the world over. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">research</a>, we identified the key trends in both coronavirus misinformation and fact-checking efforts. Using Google’s <a href="https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer">Fact Check Explorer computing interface</a> we tracked fact-check posts from January to July – with the first checks appearing as early as January 22. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google’s Fact Check Explorer database is connected with a range of fact-checkers, most of which are part of the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A uniform rate of growth</h2>
<p>Our research found the volume of fact-checks on coronavirus misinformation increased steadily in the early stages of the virus’s spread (January and February) and then increased sharply in March and April – when the virus <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00758-2">started to spread globally</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, we found the same pattern of gradual and then sudden increase even after dividing fact-checks into Spanish, Hindi, Indonesian and Portuguese. </p>
<p>Thus, misinformation and subsequent fact-checking efforts trended in a similar way right across the globe. This is a unique feature of COVID-19. </p>
<p>According to our analysis, there has been no equivalent global trend for other issues such as elections, terrorism, police activity or immigration.</p>
<h2>Different nations, different misconceptions</h2>
<p>On March 16, the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, in collaboration with Microsoft Research, <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">began cataloguing COVID-19 misinformation</a>. </p>
<p>It did this by collating news articles with reporting by a wide range of local fact-checking networks and global groups such as Agence France-Presse and NewsGuard.</p>
<p>We analysed this data set to explore the evolution of specific COVID-19 narratives, with “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEE9TjqPjuUeTtZzyEAGHi5Mmu2V5P1N/view">narrative</a>” referring to the type of story a piece of misinformation pushes. </p>
<p>For instance, one misinformation narrative concerns the “origin of the virus”. This includes the false claim the virus jumped to humans as a result of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-dodgy-cures-and-diseasology-the-spread-of-coronavirus-bunkum">someone eating</a> <a href="https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus-bat-soup">bat soup</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">The Conversation's FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found the most common narrative worldwide was related to “emergency responses”. These stories reported false information about government or political responses to fighting the virus’s outbreak.</p>
<p>This may be because, unlike narratives surrounding the “nature of the virus”, it is easy to speculate on (and hard to prove) whether people in power have good or ill intent.</p>
<p>Notably, this was also the most common narrative in the US, with an early example being a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/tech/twitter-coronavirus-new-york-misinformation/index.html">false rumour</a> the New York Police Department would immediately lock down New York City. </p>
<p>What’s more, a major motivation for spreading misinformation on social media is politics. The US is a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/">polarised political environment</a>, so this might help explain the trend towards political misinformation.</p>
<p>We also found China has more misinformation narratives than any other country. This may be because China is the world’s most populous country. </p>
<p>However, it’s worth noting the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet/china-launches-platform-to-stamp-out-online-rumors-idUSKCN1LF0HL">main fact-checking website</a> used by the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project for misinformation coming out of China is run by the Chinese Communist Party. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This chart shows the proportion of total misinformation narratives on COVID-19 by the top ten countries between January and July, 2020.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When fighting misinformation, it is important to have as wide a range of <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">independent and transparent</a> fact-checkers as possible. This reduces the potential for bias.</p>
<h2>Hydroxychloroquine and other (non) ‘cures’</h2>
<p>Another set of misinformation narratives was focused on “false cures” or “false preventative measures”. This was among the most common themes in both China and Australia. </p>
<p>One example was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/virus-video-trump.html">video</a> that went viral on social media suggesting hydroxychloroquine is an effective coronavirus treatment. This is despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-a-new-review-of-several-studies-shows-flaws-in-research-and-no-benefit-137869">experts stating</a> it is <em>not</em> a proven COVID-19 treatment, and can actually have harmful side effects.</p>
<p>Myths about the “nature of the virus” were also common. These referred to specific characteristics of the virus – such as that it can’t spread on surfaces. We know this <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-environmental-cleaning-and-disinfection-principles-for-health-and-residential-care-facilities.pdf">isn’t true</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-know-how-long-coronavirus-survives-on-surfaces-heres-what-it-means-for-handling-money-food-and-more-134671">We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here's what it means for handling money, food and more</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Narratives reflect world events</h2>
<p>Our analysis found different narratives peaked at different stages of the virus’s spread. </p>
<p>Misinformation about the nature of the virus was prevalent during the outbreak’s early stages, probably spurred by an initial lack of scientific research regarding the nature of the virus. </p>
<p>In contrast, theories relating to emergency responses surfaced later and remain even now, as governments continue to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2020/aug/11/life-under-covid-19-lockdown-in-melbourne">implement measures</a> to fight COVID-19’s spread. </p>
<h2>A wide variety of fact-checkers</h2>
<p>We also identified greater diversity in websites fact-checking COVID-19 misinformation, compared to those investigating other topics.</p>
<p>Since January, only 25% of 6,000 fact-check posts or articles were published by the top five fact-checking websites (ranked by number of posts). In comparison, 68% of 3,000 climate change fact-checks were published by the top five websites. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-help-stop-the-infodemic-the-increasing-misinformation-about-coronavirus-137561">5 ways to help stop the 'infodemic,' the increasing misinformation about coronavirus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It seems resources previously devoted to a wide range of topics are now homing in on coronavirus misinformation. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to know the total volume of this content online.</p>
<p>For now, the best defence is for governments and online platforms to increase awareness about false claims and build on the robust fact-checking infrastructures at our disposal.</p>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143352/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Shapiro has received funding for work relevant to this topic from the Bertelsmann Foundation and Microsoft.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jan Oledan is affiliated with the World Bank Group.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Weismueller and Paul Harrigan do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to COVID-19 misinformation, not all nations are the same. Some are peddling a larger variety of myths than others - and each seems to have its own personal favourite.Jason Weismueller, Doctoral Researcher, The University of Western AustraliaJacob Shapiro, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityJan Oledan, Research Specialist, Princeton UniversityPaul Harrigan, Associate Professor of Marketing, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1384562020-05-13T15:35:47Z2020-05-13T15:35:47ZCoronavirus: people want media to ramp up factchecking and question dubious claims<p>How well the media holds the UK government to account over its handling of the pandemic is a question that has been fiercely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/07/public-trust-in-uk-journalism-eroding-amid-coronavirus-polls-suggest">debated</a> over recent weeks. Journalists have been <a href="https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1258432498725466116?s=20">attacked</a> for asking difficult questions at press briefings, while broadcasters have been <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8281267/Culture-Minister-Oliver-Dowden-blasts-BBC-director-general-bias-wake-Panorama-programme.html">criticised</a> for challenging government decisions.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1258434597827854337"}"></div></p>
<p>But with the four nations of the UK weighing up different policies on dealing with the coronavirus, media reporting on their achievements will be critical to how the public responds. It will shape how they view government decisions and how trust is engendered as lockdown measures are relaxed.</p>
<p>May 1 represents an important point in time to compare coverage of the government’s handling of the pandemic. It was the day after the deadline for reaching the target for 100,000 tests per day <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-target-was-for-100000-tests-a-day-to-be-carried-out-not-capacity-to-do-100000-tests">set in early April</a> by health secretary Matt Hancock. </p>
<p>On April 30 at the government’s 5pm briefing, Hancock claimed that the government had “<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-matt-hancocks-testing-mission-smashed-target-hw7k2f2cr">smashed</a>” this target and achieved a total of more than 122,000 tests that day.</p>
<p>Broadcasters reacted in various ways. Even within the BBC, there was a striking contrast in how the story was reported. The BBC “Breaking News” Twitter feed simply repeated the government’s assertion that it had met the target. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1256253520166236163"}"></div></p>
<p>The BBC’s Reality Check account, however, cast doubt on the figure – repeating the line that the 122,000 figure included testing kits sent out to homes but not returned or analysed.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1256260652181716994"}"></div></p>
<p>The BBC’s editorial judgements are significant because they not only help set the news cycle, they are seen to provide an impartial judgement about an event or issue. By reporting whether the government had met an important policy target, in other words, the BBC can help legitimise or question that claim in the minds of the public. For example, the minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, retweeted the BBC Breaking News item not long after the the government’s announcement in order to add credibility to the idea that the target had been met.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1256257142014738433"}"></div></p>
<p>Our comparative analysis of news bulletins revealed striking differences between broadcasters. While the BBC News at Ten repeated the government’s claim in its opening headline, a subtle caveat was later added. This revealed the figure “includes nearly 40,000 test kits posted out, which may not yet have been used or returned to laboratories”.</p>
<p>ITV more explicitly questioned the government’s claim, with the anchor saying: “Now, you could say, and many have, that the government is effectively fiddling the figures, by adding in tests sent out, rather than actually returned”. Channel 4 was more circumspect, stating: “It was the day the government promised 100,000 tests a day. And whether or not they reached it depends on how you count them”. Sky News said there were “questions over how they [tests] were counted”.</p>
<h2>Public want factual reporting</h2>
<p>As part of our ongoing qualitative study with just under 200 participants drawn from a representative mix of the population, we showed them the beginning of News at Ten bulletin and the Reality Check tweet from May 1, and asked about how broadcasters should handle factchecking more generally.</p>
<p>Reactions were mixed. One respondent said: “It [BBC News at Ten] was just stating exactly what they [government] had done”, while another believed “the BBC headline led with the impression that the target had been reached, and buried that it had been done so by kind of dubious means.” Only a few participants agreed the BBC’s headline was too critical of the government’s claim.</p>
<p>But there was overwhelming support for the greater use of factchecking by broadcasters to ensure accurate reporting. As one respondent told us: “There are so many headlines and stories relating to the coronavirus and lockdown that it’s impossible to know which one is true and which one is misleading … they should take the time to factcheck certain stories.”</p>
<p>Others made specific points about holding power to account: “factchecking should be included in reports where it is likely to be beneficial, such as those covering tenuous claims”, one person said. Another told us that “people should be made aware of all the facts in a story so they can make a reasonable conclusion based on all the information not just what the government deems is important”.</p>
<p>One participant stated: “I would watch the news on TV more if things were more regularly factchecked.”</p>
<h2>Ramping up factchecking</h2>
<p>In the run up to the 2019 election, the BBC’s director of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth, wrote in The Guardian that the broadcaster had “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/04/bbc-impartiality-precious-protect-election-coverage">ramped up</a>” its Reality Check service to ensure campaign claims were rigorously checked. </p>
<p>There’s a strong case for a similar level of rigour now from all broadcasters, with David Spiegelhalter – a participant of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups">Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)</a> – even questioning the government’s use of statistics in daily press briefings.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1259409480347004928"}"></div></p>
<p>Above all, our study showed many people wanted a departure from journalists pursuing speed and speculation to verifying facts and questioning misleading statements. By factchecking more prominently in TV news bulletins, broadcasters may also encourage politicians to think twice about making dubious claims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138456/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, The British Academy, ESRC and AHRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Kyriakidou receives funding from the AHRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marina Morani receives funding from AHRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nikki Soo receives funding from AHRC. </span></em></p>Public doubts over some government information have led to calls for more active factchecking of claims.Stephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityMaria Kyriakidou, Lecturer, School of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityMarina Morani, Postdoctoral research associate, Cardiff UniversityNikki Soo, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1055072018-10-24T19:04:47Z2018-10-24T19:04:47ZVictorian election 2018: how to spot and suggest a fact check<p>Between now and November 24, when Victorians will choose their next government, they’re sure to be hit with more than their fair share of political spin, misinformation, half-truths, and maybe even a few brazen falsehoods.</p>
<p>That’s why we’ll be turning our fact-checking efforts to the issues facing Victorians as they decide the future course of their state. </p>
<p>And it’s why we want to hear from you, our readers – particularly those of you who live in Victoria. What’s the most pressing issue for you in this election campaign? What do you want to see fact-checked?</p>
<p>With your help, we’ll identify the most questionable claims and test them against the evidence, working with some of Australia’s leading academic experts to bring you information you can trust. </p>
<p>Here’s how you can get in touch with us, plus some ideas for locating material in need of myth-busting.</p>
<h2>Things that make you go ‘hmmm’</h2>
<p>Many of our FactChecks are published in response to statements made by politicians and other influential public figures. But there are plenty of other potential sources of misinformation. </p>
<p>Whenever you read or hear something that makes you think: “Really? Is that right?” That’s the perfect time to request a FactCheck. </p>
<p>For a claim to be checkable, there needs to be a data set or body of research evidence against which it can be tested. But don’t worry too much about that – we can assess the possibilities when we receive your suggestion.</p>
<p>The email address for requests is <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. It helps if you can let us know where and when you came across the claim. </p>
<p>If the source is an <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-can-native-title-only-exist-if-australia-was-settled-not-invaded-90540">online article</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-getup-on-the-impact-of-us-corporate-tax-cuts-on-wages-100753">social media post</a>, send us a link, where possible.</p>
<p>If it’s something you see in print, perhaps in <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-christian-porter-right-about-welfare-spending-and-income-tax-78609">a newspaper</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-pokies-reform-in-south-australia-wipe-out-many-of-26-000-jobs-93189">a letter</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalised-84437">a pamphlet</a>, consider taking a photo with your phone, and send it in.</p>
<p>It’s not always easy to remember the exact details of a quote, especially if you <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-the-trump-tax-cuts-led-to-lower-unemployment-and-higher-wages-101460">heard it on the radio</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-population-the-highest-growing-in-the-world-96523">on television</a>. In those cases, just provide as much information as you can. </p>
<p>Perhaps the questionable claim is something you heard at a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928">leaders’ debate</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-up-to-21-fathers-dying-by-suicide-every-week-87308">community event</a>.</p>
<p>It could be a statement made in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-bank-profits-belong-to-everyday-australians-88156">advertisement</a>, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-700-000-workers-be-ripped-off-by-penalty-rate-cuts-as-bill-shorten-said-75048">a robo-call</a> from a politician. </p>
<p>There’s a growing trend of misinformation being spread through private messaging platforms <a href="https://www.poynter.org/news/heres-why-fighting-fake-news-harder-whatsapp-facebook">like WhatsApp</a>. If you receive a viral message or meme that you would like to share with us, you can take a screen shot on your phone. If you’re not sure how to do that, you can find instructions <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT200289">here</a> and <a href="https://www.greenbot.com/article/2825064/android/how-to-take-a-screenshot-on-your-android-phone.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, if you haven’t spotted a particular claim, but there’s an election issue you’re interested in, or a perception in your community you’d like to see explored in more detail, <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">let us know</a>. </p>
<h2>How we do FactChecks at The Conversation</h2>
<p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has been running since January 2013. </p>
<p>Our method is unique, and we’re proud of it. Our experienced journalists work closely with some of Australia’s most respected academic experts to test claims against the best available data and scientific research. Our FactCheck authors bring years, and often decades, of expertise to the task.</p>
<p>After being rigorously researched, verified and tested from all angles, each FactCheck is subject to a blind review from another academic expert, who analyses the article without knowing the author’s identity. This is a valuable process that ensures the integrity and accuracy of The Conversation’s FactChecks.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These are just some of the reasons our FactCheck unit is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">accredited</a> by the <a href="https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/">International Fact-Checking Network</a>, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/">Poynter Institute</a> in the United States. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/the-conversation-factcheck/applications">accreditation</a> means we’re committed to a <a href="https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/the-commitments-of-the-code-of-principles">code of principles</a> that require non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources and methodology, transparency of funding and organisation, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/72-78vidh14?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Steal our FactChecks (seriously)</h2>
<p>At The Conversation, we believe a healthy information ecosystem is fundamental to a healthy society, and that everyone should have access to accurate information.</p>
<p>That’s why The Conversation publishes all of its content under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org.au/">Creative Commons</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">licence</a>. This means our FactChecks, and all other articles, can be republished online or in print, for free.</p>
<p>Our FactChecks have been republished by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/21/factcheck-are-5000-jobs-at-risk-if-pokies-are-banned-in-tasmania">The Guardian</a>, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-14/the-conversation-fact-check-does-sa-have-highest-energy-prices/9546506">the ABC</a>, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/10/03/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-legalised">SBS</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/its-true-wa-has-the-nations-highest-rate-of-methamphetamine-use-20170215-gudidj.html">Fairfax</a> and <a href="https://croakey.org/factcheck-do-women-in-tasmania-have-access-to-safe-abortions/">more</a>.</p>
<p>All you need to do is click the blue “Republish this article” button on the right hand side of the article. The republishing guidelines are simple, and you can find them <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/republishing-guidelines">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Stay in touch</h2>
<p>You might like to sign up to our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/newsletters">GetFacts newsletter</a>, so you can receive FactChecks direct to your inbox when they’re published.</p>
<p>The GetFacts newsletter is also home to blind reviewed articles from The Conversation’s excellent <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/research-check-25155">Research Check</a> series and other great <a href="https://theconversation.com/would-an-eruption-in-melbourne-really-match-hawaiis-volcanoes-heres-the-evidence-101675?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GetFacts%20volcano&utm_content=GetFacts%20volcano+CID_5438c1c7102fee4ac275270de43d23b1&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=to%20give%20us%20the%20geological%20low%20down">myth-busting science pieces</a>.</p>
<p>We look forward to reading your FactCheck suggestions, and wish you a well-informed election season.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241987/original/file-20181024-48712-gijqxe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media service. If you value what we do, please consider becoming a Friend of The Conversation by making a <a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?utm_source=theconversation.com&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=friends">tax-deductible donation</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
With just over four weeks to go until the Victorian state election, we’d like to know which topics matter to you, and what you’d most like to see fact-checked. Here’s how you can get involved.Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/928092018-03-04T19:27:31Z2018-03-04T19:27:31ZThe Conversation is fact checking the South Australian election — and we want to hear from you<p>South Australians will head to the polls on March 17, with the Liberal and Labor parties facing new competition from Nick Xenophon’s SA Best and Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives.</p>
<p>Thanks to the support of The University of South Australia, The Conversation will be on the ground in Adelaide to hear exactly what claims are being made by politicians of all stripes in the lead up to polling day. </p>
<p>With your help, we’ll identify the most questionable claims and test them against the evidence, working with some of Australia’s leading academic experts to cut through the spin and misinformation to bring South Australians information they can trust. </p>
<p>Importantly, we want to hear from you, our readers. What’s the most pressing issue for you in this election campaign? What claims do you want to see fact checked?</p>
<p>Facebook posts and advertisements, pamphlets, posters, robo-calls and town hall speeches: all of these are fertile grounds for fact checks. With your help, we can weed out the claims most urgently in need of verification.</p>
<p>When you see a “fact” you’d like checked, let us know. <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">Send us</a> the claim, the date it was made and a source, if possible. That might be a link, a screen-shot or a photo. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has been running since 2013, and we’re proud of our method. Our experienced journalists work closely with some of Australia’s most respected academic experts to test leaders’ claims against the best available data and scientific research. Our FactCheck authors bring years, and often decades, of subject-level expertise to the task.</p>
<p>After being rigorously researched, verified and tested from all angles, each FactCheck is subject to a blind review from another academic expert, who analyses the article without knowing the author’s identity. This is a valuable process that ensures the integrity and accuracy of The Conversation’s FactChecks.</p>
<p>These are just some of the reasons our FactCheck unit was the first in Australia and one of the first two worldwide <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network</a>, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US.</p>
<p>We adhere to a code of principles which require non-partisanship, fairness, transparency of funding, sources and methods, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<p>We’re not about the “gotcha” moment. We go to these lengths because we want to provide accurate information, and correct the record if we’re being misled. We’ll be closely watching all the players in this South Australian election campaign, and as always, every politician and public figure checked will be given the right of reply. </p>
<p>Please spread the word, and help make sure misinformation doesn’t play a role in the South Australian election.</p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation thanks <a href="https://www.unisa.edu.au/">The University of South Australia</a> for its support.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link or a photo if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation’s FactCheck team will be in Adelaide for the next two weeks, working with academics to test politicians’ claims against the evidence as South Australians prepare to vote on March 17.Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/895402017-12-22T11:42:53Z2017-12-22T11:42:53ZCan you tell fact from fiction? Take The Conversation 2017 FactCheck quiz to find out<p>Climate change and energy policy, same-sex marriage, tax cuts and welfare payments: these were just a few of the subjects of heated debate in Australia in 2017. And the debates weren’t always based on the facts.</p>
<p>So, who got it right and who got it wrong in 2017? </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-157" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/157/db30deaaf10982af2997824e9f47c261f26cec12/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation would like to thank each of the academic FactCheck authors who gave so generously of their time and expertise to delve into the evidence for and against these and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/factcheck-6544">many more contentious claims</a> in 2017 to bring you information you can trust. </p>
<p>And we’d like to thank you, our readers, for taking the time to read and share quality information, and for helping hold Australia’s leaders to account.</p>
<p>Read the full FactCheck quiz articles here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australia-below-the-international-average-when-it-comes-to-school-funding-72189">below the international average</a> when it comes to school funding?</p></li>
<li><p>Are bulk-billing rates <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-bulk-billing-rates-falling-or-at-record-levels-72278">falling, or at record levels</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Is Australia on track to have the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australia-on-track-to-have-the-oldest-pension-age-in-the-developed-world-72567">oldest pension age in the developed world</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Was it <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045">four degrees hotter</a> 110,000 years ago?</p></li>
<li><p>Do 679 of Australia’s biggest corporations pay ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-679-of-australias-biggest-corporations-pay-not-one-cent-of-tax-75455">not one cent</a>’ of tax?</p></li>
<li><p>Do Australian banks have <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-australian-banks-have-double-the-return-on-equity-of-banks-in-other-developed-economies-77784">double the return on equity</a> of banks in other developed economies?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Australia have <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-progressive-tax-rates-in-the-developed-world-77785">one of the highest progressive tax rates</a> in the developed world?</p></li>
<li><p>Will <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-700-000-workers-be-ripped-off-by-penalty-rate-cuts-as-bill-shorten-said-75048">700,000 workers</a> be ‘ripped off’ by penalty rate cuts, as Bill Shorten said?</p></li>
<li><p>Are Indigenous Australians the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528">most incarcerated people on Earth</a>?</p></li>
<li><p>Are rates of drug use <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-rates-of-drug-use-2-5-times-higher-among-unemployed-people-than-employed-people-78993">2.5 times higher</a> among unemployed people than employed people?</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-the-facts-on-birth-rates-for-muslim-couples-and-non-muslim-couples-in-australia-81183">The facts on birth rates</a> for Muslim couples and non-Muslim couples in Australia</p></li>
<li><p>Are children ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313">better off</a>’ with a mother and father than with same-sex parents?</p></li>
<li><p>Will <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalised-84437">Safe Schools be ‘mandatory’</a> if same-sex marriage is legalised?</p></li>
<li><p>Does the Safe Schools program contain ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-safe-schools-program-contain-highly-explicit-material-87437">highly explicit material</a>’?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For our full FactCheck coverage, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">click here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Australian leaders make claims, we ask the experts to test them. Can you tell fact from fiction? What’s spot-on and what’s spin?Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809592017-07-13T05:03:18Z2017-07-13T05:03:18ZThe Conversation attends Global Fact 4, with fact-checkers from around the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177998/original/file-20170713-10278-70xrxt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Delegates at Global Fact 4 in Madrid. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IFCN/Mario Garcia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the first week of July The Conversation joined media organisations from 53 countries at <a href="http://about.poynter.org/node/102080">Global Fact 4</a>, the fourth annual fact-checking summit hosted by the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/about-the-international-fact-checking-network/">International Fact-Checking Network</a>. </p>
<p>Among the 188 delegates in Madrid were journalists and editors from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/?utm_term=.1a83a6380865">The Washington Post</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/topics/267ada11-b730-4344-b404-63067c032c65/reality-check">BBC Reality Check</a>, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/">PolitiFact</a>, <a href="https://africacheck.org/">Africa Check</a>, <a href="https://fullfact.org/">Full Fact</a>, <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/">Le Monde</a>, <a href="https://climatefeedback.org/">Climate Feedback</a> and our Australian friends from <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/">RMIT/ABC Fact Check</a>.</p>
<p>Representatives from <a href="https://newslab.withgoogle.com/">Google News Lab</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/get-started/facebook-journalism-project">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://www.wikimedia.org/">Wikimedia</a>, <a href="https://reporterslab.org/about-the-lab/">Duke Reporters’ Lab</a>, <a href="https://firstdraftnews.com/">First Draft News</a> and academic experts were also among the speakers. </p>
<p>These high-profile groups were brought together to discuss the challenges facing the media and democracy when more content than ever is available, but so much of it lacks the evidence-base and rigour necessary for citizens to make informed decisions. </p>
<p>I’m pleased to report that many of the initiatives discussed as best practice for fact-checking in the years ahead are already underway at The Conversation. </p>
<p>It was encouraging to see academics – including University of Western Australia/MIT researcher <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Briony_Swire">Briony Swire-Thompson</a> – sharing <a href="http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201703019426/research/trump-and-truth-study-political-misinformation">research</a> on the science relating to the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2819073">spread of misinformation</a>, and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315735380_The_Role_of_Familiarity_in_Correcting_Inaccurate_Information">how best to tackle it</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"882892201780535296"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"882904548486074368"}"></div></p>
<p>In a session on how fact-checkers can adapt their formats and methods to overcome the rejection of evidence by readers, <a href="https://neuro.org.ar/profile/313">Dr Guillermo Solovey</a> suggested more collaboration between fact-checkers and academics. Solovey recommended the publishing of peer-reviewed fact-checks – a model first introduced by The Conversation in 2013. </p>
<p>Following Solovey’s session, I was pleased to explain The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">fact-check process</a> to all delegates, and lead a discussion about our process in a breakout session with editors from PolitiFact, Full Fact, Africa Check and others. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"883224271719464960"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"883233862448537600"}"></div></p>
<p>Among the issues discussed at the summit was the need for <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2017/is-collaboration-the-new-frontier-of-fact-checking-3-journalists-share-their-experiences/465969/">collaboration between news organisations</a> to stop the spread of misinformation as quickly, efficiently and comprehensively as possible. Delegates learned more about successful collaborations between dozens of rival news organisations <a href="https://firstdraftnews.com/crosscheck-starts/">in France</a>, and between fact-checking and verification organisations <a href="https://firstdraftnews.com/joint-venture-learnings/">in the UK</a>, during the 2017 general elections in those countries.</p>
<p>Another collaborative project is now <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2017/rivals-become-partners-in-norways-newest-fact-checking-project/452882/">underway in Norway</a>, with the non-profit organisation <a href="https://www.faktisk.no/">Faktisk</a> bringing together journalists from two of Norway’s most-read online news organisations, the public broadcaster and a commercial television station in an effort to bring more evidence-based information to the public debate.</p>
<p>Also discussed was the need for the <a href="https://reporterslab.org/factpopup-new-version-automated-fact-checking/">automation</a> of certain parts of <a href="https://fullfact.org/automated">fact-checking</a> and <a href="http://www.sharethefacts.org/">publishing processes</a> to maximise the spread of accurate information. The Conversation is currently working with the Duke Reporters’ Lab to have our academic-authored fact-checks promoted in Google searches when inaccurate claims surface. </p>
<p>Veteran journalist and media critic Tom Rosenstiel from The American Press Institute <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2017/is-it-time-to-completely-rethink-fact-checking/453003/">proposed a shift</a> from ‘claim-based’ fact-checks towards ‘issues-based’ fact-checks, as one way to reduce the rejection of facts based on partisan divides.</p>
<p>At front of mind throughout Global Fact 4 was the fostering and maintenance of trust between fact-checkers and the public, especially with the term ‘fact check’ now being abused by propagandists and other groups spreading misinformation. To combat this, the International Fact-Checking Network has created an <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">international code of principles</a> to help people identify which fact-checking sources to trust.</p>
<p>The Conversation was proud to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">one of the first two</a> fact-checking units in the world to be accredited, alongside The Washington Post Fact Checker. At the Global Fact 4 summit, we were thrilled to see this list has now grown to 25, and is expected to keep growing.</p>
<p>It will take a collaborative, global effort to turn the tide against the spread of misinformation that threatens the functioning of democracy. The Conversation is committed to working with academics and news organisations in Australia and around the world to achieve this goal.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"883329541187547140"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"883349914968883201"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>You can read The Conversation’s FactChecks <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">here</a>, and learn more about our FactCheck process in this <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-we-do-factchecks-at-the-conversation-73134">72-second video</a>. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation joined media organisations from 53 countries at Global Fact 4, the fourth annual fact-checking summit hosted by the International Fact-Checking Network in Madrid.Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/743632017-03-12T00:45:02Z2017-03-12T00:45:02ZThe Conversation’s FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160273/original/image-20170310-3703-1wdwwlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook has said being a signatory to Poynter's code of principles is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on its network.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/esthervargasc/10948923353/in/photolist-hFw6sz-q8jyMs-5fxik-4rWiK4-39u1L1-4USXkP-pUUqXC-ayMaDJ-pU8X3S-aqykCF-5fxmY-5fxej-5fxq2-MWNqV-4APB4-74Z3Sh-a6PfMX-VsA5F-bBsnwu-dHvtNv-beVk9v-2EsH-6oA9bR-nDEban-oZ5oJ4-4oRBYD-9p9EUk-SLJyBk-dHCMz1-gMKoH2-ntxC6e-oLYSA2-fKqEDR-qu62Qk-mZCEBP-6hdKsq-3K92tp-phyqDt-aMHaiH-oLHdEZ-fUMosn-oLXpj7-4znP1S-nU75Kf-bmpkZL-j7s6pF-ibooom-9qDWdY-gJhdXA-5oSLxP">Flickr/Esther Vargas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">accredited</a> by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. </p>
<p>The only other fact-checking team accredited under this process is the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/">Washington Post’s Fact Checker</a>.</p>
<p>The accreditation process is part of a broader effort by media outlets to restore reader trust in a world where anyone can claim the title FactCheck – whether or not they have approached the task in a fair, rigorous and impartial way.</p>
<p>Facebook has <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/facebook-has-a-plan-to-fight-fake-news-heres-where-we-come-in/442649/">said</a> being a signatory to a code of principles developed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter is a condition for being accepted as a third-party fact-checker on the social network. Facebook is partnering with news organisations in an effort to weed out so-called “fake news”.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TVH6Xduaz8lYxvnRfMzi85PMTxCseNoUQ-gcdqIsnoI/edit?usp=sharing">The accreditation</a> means The Conversation’s unique approach to fact checking has been assessed by an external panel as compliant with the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">code of fact-checker’s principles,</a> which require non-partisanship, fairness, transparency of funding, sources and methods, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.</p>
<p>Accredited organisations can use the International Fact-Checking Network’s verification badge to demonstrate compliance with the principles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=237&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160373/original/image-20170311-19263-1oenx3v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=298&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The verification badge that may only be shown by fact-checking units that have passed the application and accreditation process managed by the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Acclaim on behalf of the IFCN</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In its application for verified status, The Conversation described its unique <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">methodology</a>, in which we ask academics with subject expertise to test claims by public figures against the evidence, and seek sources and comment from the person we are fact-checking. The draft is then blind reviewed by a second expert who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYLdaZWt9H8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The external assessor <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-dqYAuRL4RxWWtJSHZpamdzTTU1TEM4UGFsd1NwN2Fwak00/view">described</a> the The Conversation as “a refreshing combination of journalistic writing with academic expertise” and praised the peer-review process, commenting: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This gives it an additional layer of protection in the realm of fact-checking and presenting non-partisan information on a variety of key subjects to a worldwide audience… The Conversation’s experts analyse the claims and then provide a “verdict” about whether the statement(s) was false, overstated or correct, noting the grey areas in how those facts may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented, which is an additional layer I found the public could find useful.</p>
<p>I have to say as a college professor (now) and journalist (then), this combination of fact-checking through an expert and peer-review is one of the more innovative models I have encountered or read about. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Conversation’s verified status is valid for one year, after which it will be reviewed. You can read more about the International Fact-Checking Network’s admissions process <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/facebook-launches-a-new-disputed-tag-to-combat-fak.html">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Conversation’s FactCheck has become the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network at the US-based Poynter Institute.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/721892017-02-12T19:10:13Z2017-02-12T19:10:13ZFactCheck: is Australia below the international average when it comes to school funding?<blockquote>
<p>Australia is slightly below average when it comes to international funding for our schools. <strong>– Tanya Plibersek, shadow minister for education, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/grade-one-diagnostic-tests-opposed-by-labor-education-union/news-story/8d85ad948bcee3e0535e2d669bd36547">speaking to journalists</a>, January 29, 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Current school funding arrangements <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-model-was-corrupted-but-labor-and-coalition-are-both-to-blame-65875">run out at the end of this year</a>, and schools need to know what will replace them. So we can expect to hear arguments over how much funding different parts of government should provide, how funding should grow over time, and how it should be allocated. </p>
<p>Before entering those challenging discussions, it helps to agree on some baseline facts. Tanya Plibersek, shadow minister for education, recently told reporters that Australia is slightly below average when it comes to international funding for our schools.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support her statement, a spokesman for Tanya Plibersek referred The Conversation to OECD data showing that Australia’s per student spending as a percentage of per capita GDP is 18% for primary compared to the OECD average of 22%, and 23% for secondary compared to the OECD average of 25%. </p>
<p>These figures come directly from <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933397510">Table B1.4</a> of the OECD’s <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm"><em>Education at a Glance 2016</em></a> report. This report is used as the source of most figures in this FactCheck.</p>
<p>The metric that Plibersek uses clearly supports her claim and comes from a reliable source. But there are other ways to measure school funding and compare Australia’s spend with other developed countries.</p>
<p>This FactCheck will focus on recurrent funding from federal and state/territory governments, the crux of Australian school funding debates <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/schoolfunding">since at least the 1970s</a>. Capital investment – such as on new buildings or new schools – is excluded. Private funding is an important source of income for many schools, but by its nature is beyond the control of education ministers. </p>
<h2>How should we compare funding levels?</h2>
<p>Australia should be compared to other developed countries. This most often means the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm">35 countries</a> that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). </p>
<p>Countries have vastly different numbers of students, and students in some countries stay in school longer than in others. Wage rates also vary greatly across countries. </p>
<p>To account for these differences, there are different ways to compare education funding. </p>
<p>There is no ideal metric, but comparing education funding to GDP probably gives the most accurate picture: it is more stable over time, because it does not rely on exchange rate conversions, and it reflects, at least in part, differences in wages.</p>
<h2>Slightly below OECD average when expressed as a share of GDP</h2>
<p>As a share of GDP, Australia’s allocation of government money to schools is slightly below the OECD average. Australia spent <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm">3.2% of GDP</a> on school education in 2013, slightly below the OECD average of 3.4%. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/B1pGw/6/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="542"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>So, measured this way, the data support Plibersek’s assertion. </p>
<p>Looking at the population mix provides further support, because Australia has relatively more <a href="https://data.oecd.org/pop/young-population.htm">young people than the OECD average</a>, and a <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-you-worry-about-a-schools-shortage-it-really-depends-on-where-you-live-53296">booming school-age population</a>. </p>
<p>For example, only 143 Koreans out of every 1,000 are under the age of 15, compared to 188 Australians. So while Korea spends marginally less on school education as a percentage of GDP than Australia (3.1% vs 3.2%) the reality is that Korea spends a much higher proportion of GDP per student than Australia. </p>
<p>The metric cited by Plibersek takes differences in population mix into account, but is harder to interpret than a simple comparison of funding to GDP. </p>
<p>And measuring funding in different ways may give a different picture.</p>
<p>For example, if private spending (meaning school fees) is included in the same metric, Australian spending on schooling is just above the OECD average (3.9% versus 3.7%). This reflects the relatively high proportion of fee-paying non-government schools in Australia compared to most OECD countries.</p>
<h2>Direct per student funding gives a mixed picture</h2>
<p>Per student funding metrics can be used to directly compare the amount of money being provided in support of the average student. But these are fraught, because some countries are richer than others and because exchange rates fluctuate over time. That’s partly why I think comparing education funding to GDP (as in the chart above) is a more accurate reflection.</p>
<p>The most recent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933397510">OECD data</a> give a mixed picture of per student spending, showing (when rounded) that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Australia spent slightly less in 2013 than the average OECD country on primary school students: US$8,300 versus US$8,500</p></li>
<li><p>Australia spent about 10% more than the average OECD country on secondary school students: US$10,900 versus US$9,800 </p></li>
<li><p>Over the expected duration of schooling, the cumulative spend per student was about 16% higher in Australia than the OECD average. This is because Australian students stay in school longer than in many other countries.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>A higher proportion of total government spending</h2>
<p>Comparing education funding to total government expenditure makes Australia’s relative spend on education look artificially high, since <a href="https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm">Australian government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest in the OECD</a> even if superannuation is included <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/601-CALF-size-of-gonvernment.pdf">(see page 14 of this report)</a>. </p>
<p>The data show 9.7% of government spending in Australia goes on schooling. This is higher than the OECD average of 8.0%. </p>
<p>Indeed, it ranks us equal sixth out of 33 OECD countries for which these data are available. This may well be the source of federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham’s claim that Australia’s spend on schools is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-16/government-to-reconsider-school-funding-global-education-report/7850746">“among the top of the pack in terms of investment”</a>. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Was Tanya Plibersek right to say “Australia is slightly below average when it comes to international funding for our schools”?</p>
<p>It all depends on how you measure it – but, yes, she is basically correct.</p>
<p>OECD data show that Australia’s per student spending as a percentage of per capita GDP is below the OECD average. </p>
<p>And as a share of GDP, Australia spent <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm">3.2% of GDP</a> on school education in 2013, slightly below the OECD average of 3.4%. Measuring funding this way gives the clearest picture, in my view.</p>
<p>Measuring funding in different ways gives a different picture, as explained above, and some approaches show Australia ahead of other developed countries. But measuring Australian government spending on schools as a share of GDP gives an easy, accurate and stable metric for international comparison, and supports Plibersek’s claim. <strong>– Peter Goss</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This article accurately depicts relevant OECD data. Using this data, it shows Tanya Plibersek’s comment to be accurate. </p>
<p>As an aside, however, it is important to keep in mind that Plibersek’s comments and related OECD data focus only on nation-to-nation comparisons. Yet in Australia’s federal system of governance there are significant differences between levels of school funding when comparing states and territories, and also schooling sectors. </p>
<p>Plibersek’s focus on Australia as a whole is certainly useful for understanding where Australia “sits” in comparison to other OECD nations. But to engage fully with a debate about Australian school funding arrangements, close attention is needed to how federal funding interacts with sub-national systems and sectors. <strong>– Glenn C. Savage</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glenn C. Savage receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>Tanya Plibersek, shadow minister for education, told reporters recently that Australia is slightly below average when it comes to international funding for our schools. Is that right?Peter Goss, School Education Program Director, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711462017-01-30T19:08:41Z2017-01-30T19:08:41ZFactCheck: What are the facts on Australia’s foreign aid spending?<blockquote>
<p>Aid was at its highest under Menzies, at 0.5% … when per capita income was much lower. – <strong>World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html?deviceType=text">quoted</a> in The Sydney Morning Herald, December 28, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html">news report</a> highlighting the fall in Australia’s foreign aid spending quoted World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello as saying aid was at its highest under Prime Minister Robert Menzies, at 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) – at a time when per capita income was much lower.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, Reverend Tim Costello referred The Conversation to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data published <a href="http://www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=801&cr1=oecd&lg=en&page=1">here</a>. He added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If anything, I perhaps understated the case because aid was actually a bit higher than 0.5% in the 1960s. </p>
<p>Aid first went over 0.5% in 1963, dipped slightly in 1964, then went over 0.5% again from 1965 and every subsequent year into the 1970s. In 1967 and again in 1970 it hit 0.62%. </p>
<p>The highest single year was 1975 at 0.65%, but the highest decade taken as an average was the 1960s under Menzies. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read Costello’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-reverend-tim-costello-71268">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Is it true Australia’s foreign aid spending was at its highest under Menzies?</h2>
<p>In making his statement about foreign aid spending, Costello relied on data published by the OECD that go back as far as 1960.</p>
<p>Given <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">the difficulty</a> of obtaining data from Australian government sources on aid spending during the Menzies era (meaning 1949-66 for present purposes, though Menzies <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/">also served</a> as prime minister from 1939-1941), this is understandable. However, it’s not safe to depend upon OECD aid statistics in this instance.</p>
<p>Based on the most up-to-date Australian government data, the highest ratio of aid to gross national income under any Australian government since annual reporting began was 0.48%. That was in the financial year 1967-68 under three prime ministers in quick succession: Harold Holt, John McEwen and John Gorton.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader point is correct. Australian aid generosity is a fraction of what it once was. Australia’s share of aid to GNI is projected to decline to 0.22% in 2016-17, its <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">lowest level ever</a>. Generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though GNI per capita was less than half of its present level in real terms.</p>
<h2>What’s the problem with using OECD data on aid spending?</h2>
<p>A careful review of the statistics published by relevant Australian government agencies, including some that are tricky to find, indicates that the OECD’s aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia are quite inflated for the three decades or so from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s. </p>
<p>This inflation is mainly down to differences between the OECD’s estimates of Australia’s <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gross-national-income-gni.asp">gross national income</a> and Australia’s own estimates. </p>
<p>While OECD data on Australia’s GNI over time are based on the Australian government’s reporting to the OECD, the Australian government periodically revises its estimates of past GNI. Such revisions appear not to have been reflected uniformly in OECD data. </p>
<p>On average, the aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia published by the OECD up to 1995 are inflated by about 20%. For some individual years, including 1975, the ratios are inflated by more than 40%. </p>
<h2>How else can we track Australia’s aid spending?</h2>
<p>The Development Policy Centre’s <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">Aid Tracker</a> uses the most readily available Australian government statistics to show Australian aid flows since the financial year 1971-72. The highest aid-to-GNI ratio between then and now was 0.47%, in 1974-75.</p>
<p>But what about the Menzies era? </p>
<p>It’s no straightforward matter to obtain statistics from Australian government sources on annual aid flows under Menzies, or any other prime minister before Whitlam. But they can be found with a little <a href="https://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">detective work</a>. Data on annual aid spending as far back as 1961-62 are buried in old Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) year books. </p>
<p>Australian government data, including the old ABS data just mentioned, show that the highest aid-to-GNI ratio under <em>any</em> Australian government was 0.48%. That ratio was seen under Prime Ministers Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>The chart below compares Australia’s actual aid-to-GNI ratios (blue line) with those asserted in OECD statistics (orange line). The <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">red line</a> represents the 0.5% aid spending target that both major political parties had, for a time, pledged to meet by 2015. The purple line represents the 0.7% United Nations target for foreign aid spending.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Data from: ABS Annual Year Books, 1970-72; AusAID Blue Book 2012-13; DFAT Green Book 2013-14; Federal Government Budget Papers 2014-15 to 2016-17; OECD Development Assistance Committee Official Development Assistance database.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>See <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpu46qhp7qcnvcy/Data%20and%20charts.xlsx?dl=0">this spreadsheet</a> for a collation of the data on which the above chart is based. You can read more about my methodology, including how the chart was constructed, <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-71470">here</a>.</p>
<h2>How has Australia’s foreign aid spend changed over time?</h2>
<p>Australia’s overseas aid spending has had <a href="https://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854">unprecedented reductions</a> since the Coalition came to office in 2013. </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/portfolio-budget-statements/Pages/budget-highlights-2016-17.aspx">aid budget for 2016-17</a>, at $3.8 billion, is around one-third less in real terms than the $5.1 billion spent in <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/summary-of-australia-s-overseas-aid-program-2012-13.aspx">2012-13</a>.</p>
<p>The $5.1 billion spent in 2012-13 represented the peak of Australia’s aid effort in dollar terms. But in terms of the ratio of aid to GNI, it was well below the levels of the 1960s and 1970s.</p>
<p>Based on the economic growth forecast in the government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/myefo/download/01-Part-1.pdf">December 2016 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a>, Australia’s 2016-17 aid budget is estimated to amount to 0.22% of Australia’s gross national income. </p>
<p>In dollar terms, that’s 22 cents in every $100, compared with 34 cents in every $100 in 2012-13, and 48 cents in every $100 in the late 1960s. </p>
<p>In recent years both major Australian political parties have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3657243.htm">made and subsequently abandoned time-bound commitments</a> to meet an aid-to-GNI ratio of 0.5%. </p>
<p>A ratio of 0.5% would be well below <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm">the UN target of 0.7%</a>, which <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/development-aid-rises-again-in-2015-spending-on-refugees-doubles.htm">six OECD donor countries</a> met or exceeded in 2015 (the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden).</p>
<p>Given that estimates of gross national income have been revised over time, it’s important also to consider policy intentions. ABS year books from the early 1970s show that Australian governments believed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that they were allocating more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income to aid. </p>
<h2>Australians are much wealthier than they were 50 years ago</h2>
<p>Costello is certainly right to say per capita income (gross national income divided by the number of Australians) was much lower in the Menzies era than it is now.</p>
<p>Growth in per capita income has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/18/even-though-myefo-figures-might-cost-us-our-aaa-rating-the-coalition-faces-greater-dangers">slowed lately</a>, and household disposable income has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/the-population-booms-hidden-secret/news-story/d2a892dcea0ab8e9967455880502f4c1">fallen</a> over the last several years. But Australia’s per capita income remains well above the average of OECD member countries, and of all high-income countries.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators">The Conversation/Data from World Bank - World Development Indicators</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>So while Australians have grown richer, our aid generosity has declined.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Tim Costello’s underlying point is correct, even if his specifics were a bit out. </p>
<p>The highest aid-to-GNI ratio under any Australian government was in fact 0.48% under Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>Costello relied on OECD statistics that are unreliable for the period in question. Even so, he was only out by a year and a fraction of a percentage point. Moreover, governments at the time did believe they were spending more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income on aid.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader message – that Australia’s foreign aid generosity has diminished while Australians have become wealthier – is correct.</p>
<p>Aid generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though per capita income was less than half of its present level. <strong>– Robin Davies</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. The author has provided a careful, sophisticated and impartial analysis of Australia’s foreign aid spending from the 1960s to the present day. We know little about how Australian aid spending levels prior to 1971 compare to today’s and it is terrific that the author has delved into this area despite the data-related and methodological challenges.</p>
<p>I would add that it is worth considering how the Australian government has measured foreign aid spending, whether this has changed between the early 1960s and the present, and — if there have been changes — whether they affect our ability to compare ratios of aid to gross national income across this time period. I expect that doing so will not materially affect the analysis, but it would be useful to know. <strong>– Andrew Rosser</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71146/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Davies is the Associate Director of the Development Policy Centre, a think tank on aid and development which is hosted by the Australian National University and funded by the university and two foundations, the Harold Mitchell Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Development Policy Centre has received project-related grant funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Rosser has received funding from a range of donor organisations including AusAID/DFAT. He has also received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>We check the facts on how Australia’s foreign aid spend has changed over time.Robin Davies, Associate Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705932016-12-26T21:54:36Z2016-12-26T21:54:36ZYear in Review: FactCheck and the weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements of 2016<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150852/original/image-20161220-24310-1gl71mm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Conversation published 29 FactChecks over the eight week federal election campaign</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2016 was the year of “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">post-truth</a>” politics, of <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/">fake news</a> and “<a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/out-of-the-way-logic-feelpinions-are-taking-over/news-story/6f4d0d5ba933b9a381b4581266fde0d1">feelpinions</a>”. But while facts may have fallen out of fashion abroad, the popularity of The Conversation’s FactCheck articles show that many Australians still expect and demand their politicians stick to some sort of mutually agreed upon reality.</p>
<p>Bald-faced lies are, thankfully, fairly rare in Australian politics. Being caught in an outright fib or blooper is still seen as shameful. The problem in Australia is that facts and statistics are frequently twisted to paint a misleading picture. </p>
<p>Weasel-words, cherry-picking and overstatements are common. Our politicians and lobby groups are masterful at disguising opinion and ideology as fact, and making statements that, ultimately, aren’t checkable. These tactics are harder to spot, but equally dangerous.</p>
<p>Sometimes FactCheck finds politicians and other public figures to be completely correct. We should recognise and commend leaders who use facts accurately, in context and tell the whole story. That’s when Australians have the best chance of making informed decisions about their country.</p>
<p>2016 was a federal election year in Australia, and our academic experts worked harder than ever during the marathon political campaign. We published 29 <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/election-factcheck-2016-27402">Election FactChecks</a> over the eight week campaign, nearly one every two business days – an impressive output from our experts given the rigour of The Conversation’s FactCheck <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158">process</a>. </p>
<p>We ask authors to double-check the numbers, scrutinise the fine print, play devil’s advocate, question their assumptions, produce charts, provide links, improve their sourcing, rewrite their copy for clarity – and then all FactChecks are blind reviewed. That means an independent expert academic who doesn’t know the identity of the lead author checks that the story is sound.</p>
<p>Throughout the year, we fact-checked claims about all the key issues making headlines in Australia, and cast a sceptical eye on politicians and public figures of all political stripes. <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/factcheck-qanda-6550">Our Q&A FactChecks</a>, in which we fact-checked comments made on the ABC TV show each week, commanded a large audience.</p>
<p>A few themes came up over and over again: <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-much-was-spent-on-the-cambodia-refugee-deal-and-how-many-were-settled-68807">refugees</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">asylum seekers</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-welfare-recipients-owe-the-australian-government-about-3-5-billion-61906">welfare reform</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-the-job-market-got-so-bad-that-people-have-stopped-looking-for-work-67457">job market</a>, the state of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-what-are-the-facts-on-jobs-and-growth-in-australia-70114">economy</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-labor-planning-to-increase-taxes-by-100-billion-over-ten-years-59159">tax</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-does-australia-have-one-of-the-most-unequal-education-systems-in-the-oecd-58156">inequality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-have-eight-of-australias-12-most-emission-intensive-power-stations-closed-in-the-last-five-years-65036">energy</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-australians-with-an-average-seafood-diet-ingest-11-000-pieces-of-plastic-a-year-55145">environment</a> to name a few. </p>
<p>You can read a list of our ten best-read FactChecks of 2016 at the end of this article. Some personal favourites that didn’t make the top ten include our 2016 <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-tell-fact-from-fiction-take-the-conversation-2016-factcheck-quiz-to-find-out-70212">FactCheck Quiz</a> produced by Deputy FactCheck Editor Lucinda Beaman; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395">welfare cost and unemployment rate of refugees</a>; a <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-suicide-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-maternal-death-in-australia-65336">handful</a> of FactChecks on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-lyle-shelton-right-about-transgender-people-and-a-higher-suicide-risk-after-surgery-55573">suicide</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-eating-disorders-have-the-highest-mortality-rate-of-all-mental-illnesses-66495">risk</a>; one on how <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-australia-among-the-only-major-advanced-economies-where-pollution-levels-are-going-up-59731">emissions are tracking around the world</a>; a FactCheck on projected <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-as-the-climate-changes-are-750-million-refugees-predicted-to-move-away-from-flooding-63400">climate change refugee numbers</a>; a FactCheck on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-does-the-government-spend-more-on-negative-gearing-and-capital-gains-tax-discounts-than-on-child-care-or-higher-education-61009">“cost” of negative gearing</a>; an evidence-based analysis of <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-could-a-vote-among-under-30s-in-australia-possibly-deliver-a-greens-prime-minister-60256">whether a vote among under 30s could deliver a Greens prime minister</a>; and a FactCheck on <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-use-of-antibiotics-in-general-practice-20-above-the-oecd-average-68657">antibiotic overuse</a> in Australia. </p>
<p>FactCheck owes a debt of gratitude to our interns, who pore over transcripts, monitor the media and help track down expert authors to write the FactChecks. A special thanks to Jennifer Cooke, who helped coordinate FactCheck coverage as Deputy FactCheck Editor during the federal election and to the generous 3,500 readers who donated to a crowd-funding effort that allowed Lucinda Beaman to be hired as ongoing Deputy FactCheck Editor. </p>
<p>Most importantly, thank you to all our readers, who believed in 2016 that facts still matter.</p>
<h2>Top 10 best-read FactChecks of 2016</h2>
<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-30-of-northern-territory-farmland-and-22-of-tasmanian-farmland-foreign-owned-65155">FactCheck: Is 30% of Northern Territory farmland and 22% of Tasmanian farmland foreign-owned?</a> By Bill Pritchard, University of Sydney, Erin Smith, University of the Sunshine Coast (reviewed by Jeffrey Wilson).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-are-many-refugees-illiterate-and-innumerate-59584">Election FactCheck: are many refugees illiterate and innumerate?</a> By Georgina Ramsay, University of Newcastle (reviewed by Lucy Fiske).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-has-the-nbn-been-delayed-59906">Election FactCheck Q&A: has the NBN been delayed?</a> By Rod Tucker, University of Melbourne (reviewed by Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-what-are-the-real-numbers-on-refugees-and-other-migrants-coming-to-australia-66912">FactCheck Q&A: what are the real numbers on refugees and other migrants coming to Australia?</a> Khanh Hoang, Australian National University (reviewed by Sara Davies)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-is-the-australian-sex-party-right-about-religious-organisations-tax-and-record-keeping-61427">Election FactCheck: is the Australian Sex Party right about religious organisations, tax and record-keeping?</a> By Bronwen Dalton, University of Technology Sydney (reviewed by Ann O'Connell).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-one-in-three-age-pensioners-living-under-the-poverty-line-65715">FactCheck Q&A: are one in three age pensioners living under the poverty line?</a> By Rafal Chomik, UNSW Australia (reviewed by Ben Phillips).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-global-demand-for-coal-still-going-through-the-roof-60234">Election FactCheck Q&A: is global demand for coal still going through the roof?</a> By Lynette Molyneaux, The University of Queensland (reviewed by John Rolfe).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-it-true-australias-unemployment-payment-level-hasnt-increased-in-over-20-years-59250">Election FactCheck Q&A: is it true Australia’s unemployment payment level hasn’t increased in over 20 years?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Gerry Redmond).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-qanda-is-australia-among-the-lowest-taxing-countries-in-the-oecd-59229">Election FactCheck Q&A: is Australia among the lowest-taxing countries in the OECD?</a> By Helen Hodgson, Curtin University (reviewed by Kevin Davis).</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-the-coalition-presided-over-the-most-sustained-fall-in-australian-living-standards-since-records-began-60327">Election FactCheck: Has the Coalition presided over the most sustained fall in Australian living standards since records began?</a> By Peter Whiteford, Australian National University (reviewed by Roger Wilkins).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You can read all our 2016 FactChecks on our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">FactCheck page</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Bald-faced lies are fairly rare in Australian politics but, in 2016, weasel-words and cherry-picking were common. Politicians and public figures are experts at disguising opinion and ideology as fact.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLucinda Beaman, FactCheck EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/611582016-06-16T11:46:28Z2016-06-16T11:46:28ZJust the facts, ma'am: a guide to The Conversation’s FactCheck process<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150844/original/image-20161219-24276-144i22y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">All our FactChecks are blind reviewed by a second expert</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gato-gato-gato/14690786428/in/photolist-oob7Zb-4bBYuk-82GaBd-dQVikx-j6vbuk-9Nus2W-5Jz27p-5uSUAo-KLqgJ-8nynbz-62WnVA-44QJD-7LHQdT-8MExEF-avd5xS-62Sb4n-2oRvhD-7MMrxX-7xWwNm-r7fyRD-7wRY4d-yU2P2-qQiTSo-avd5kU-7rMAZ5-8xRCUN-6NuevW-6DTxEa-chA5ow-5vqAG-6ha58M-9twBci-4HvP2Z-dAUQp1-7MMs2k-31r4RN-6gSMFM-pQpkyi-kncdh-it14QJ-6VKHWz-6PBKsC-6Nfhhu-fBeQEB-4LCLPM-fNBhuh-2oVT8Q-prn8bx-k9CJv3-fbygYa">Tobi Galke/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s now a vast <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2015/fact-checkers-of-the-world-unite/379716/">network</a> of factcheck units around the world, operating in myriad different languages. However, none have a process quite like ours at The Conversation.</p>
<p>I’m The Conversation’s FactCheck Editor, so of course I’d say that. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Alexios Mantzarlis, chief of the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2015/fact-checkers-of-the-world-unite/379716/">International Fact-Checking Network</a> at the prestigious <a href="http://www.poynter.org/">Poynter Institute</a> in the US, who has studied most of the factcheck units operating across the globe. His take on our process? </p>
<p>“The Conversation’s approach is a unique and fascinating model, and one that fact-checkers around the world could benefit from observing,” he said, noting that our blind review process was what made us different.</p>
<p>Alexios asked me to describe The Conversation’s fact checking process in detail for an article he was writing. You can read his write-up <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/should-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics/391230/">here</a> and Twitter discussion about it <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poynter.org%2F2016%2Fshould-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics%2F391230%2F&src=typd">here</a>. I’ve reproduced below what I told him about our process (with a few edits for clarity). </p>
<p>I hope you enjoy reading our FactChecks as much as I do editing them. </p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation has quite a lengthy and structured process. I’ll break it down here, step by step.</p>
<h2>Find the claim</h2>
<p>It must be a quote from a politician, or other influential person in society. We don’t fact check “ideas” or concepts, we fact check quotes from people. We first assess whether the claim is actually checkable (is there a data set or a body of research evidence against which this claim could be checked?) and also whether or not there’s sufficient public interest in it. It’s no use trying to commission a FactCheck on a quote like “Australia has the best maternity leave policy in the OECD”. Phrases like “the best” are not checkable, they’re too subjective. It’s also better to try to avoid, where possible, attempting to fact check the future.</p>
<h2>Find and commission the academic author</h2>
<p>Once you have a claim worth checking, find an academic with the right expertise to research and write it up. This often involves contacting a few academics to find one who can be dispassionate in their approach and chat about how they’d tackle it, how quickly they could do it and what data sets they’d use to test the assertion. Then we commission the story. Our briefs are often quite detailed, and ask the authors to source every assertion they make in their FactCheck and answer specific questions, and steer clear of opinion, commentary and speculation. The FactChecks are not about how things “should” be, they’re about how things are. They’re about testing statements against the evidence and conveying those findings in plain English to a general audience, with a nice short verdict at the end. The verdict doesn’t always have to be “right” or “wrong”. It could be something more nuanced than that. This is about educating the audience, not trying to win a “gotcha” moment. No jargon, no emotive language, and keep it tight – preferably around 800 words. </p>
<h2>Seek sources and comment</h2>
<p>Contact the person whose claim you’re fact checking, or their spokesperson. Best to do this by email so there’s an email trail showing you went to them for comment. Explain you’ve commissioned the FactCheck and ask them a) for a data source to support the assertion you’re fact checking and b) whether there’s any further comment they’d like us to include in the story. Often we cannot include their full answer in the main article because of word length limits but we can include part of it and then tell the reader to click on a link to read the answer in full. Allow the person you’re fact checking sufficient time to reply.</p>
<h2>Find the blind reviewer</h2>
<p>While the academic is working away on the FactCheck, find a second academic with similar expertise to be the blind reviewer. It’s very important the blind reviewer does not know the identity of the author of the main article. This often means not disclosing the gender of the main author and trying where possible to find a blind reviewer academic from a different university or state from the main author. I’ll always impress upon them the importance of them staying naive to the name of the main author. This blind reviewer also needs to be dispassionate, not activist, in their approach to writing the article.</p>
<h2>Edit with a critical eye</h2>
<p>When the main author academic files his or her piece, I will edit it. That usually means putting a nice lead on it, editing out any opinion or jargon that’s crept in. I also put on my “Devil’s Advocate” hat and read the piece with a very critical eye and try to find holes in the author’s argument or weaknesses in their own sourcing. Once I have a version I am happy with, I send it back to the academic to check and hopefully approve. If they want further changes, we workshop those together.</p>
<p>At this point, I’ll often ask the opinion of a senior colleague. I’ll ask them to read over what we have got so far and see if they can identify weaknesses or suggest changes for clarity. This is a valuable step.</p>
<h2>Get it blind reviewed</h2>
<p>Once it’s looking good and the academic has approved it, I’ll take all the names off it and send it to the blind reviewer. They read over the anonymous draft and check the author “got it right”. Have they sourced their assertions properly? Did they cherry-pick the data? Did they accurately convey the evidence-based consensus among experts or have they gone out into fringe territory? Is there a way to communicate these ideas more clearly? If the reviewer sees room for improvement, they convey that to me and I workshop those improvements with the original academic author. If the blind reviewer is happy with the FactCheck, they write a short one-par review at the end saying something like “This is a sound analysis” and adding any further points they feel are needed. </p>
<h2>Get a fresh pair of eyes on it</h2>
<p>Then I ask a senior colleague to copytaste it. That means edit it for errors, look at it with fresh eyes to see if any of it is speculation passed off as fact, find holes in the argument, look for potential legal problems. If they see problems, we go back to the first author and get them to fix it, and then run those fixes past the blind reviewer, then it goes back to the copytaster.</p>
<p>If the copytaster finds no problems, we ask the author and the blind reviewer to have one final, forensic read-through of the whole thing and stress that this is their very last chance to fix any potential problems before publication. If there’s anything they’re not rock-solid, stand-up-in-court-and-say-it certain about, I ask them to delete it: when in doubt, take it out.</p>
<h2>Publish</h2>
<p>After the author and the blind reviewer have approved the final version, we publish and distribute on social media.</p>
<h2>And if something goes wrong?</h2>
<p>If we become aware that a correction is needed, we consult first with the author of the article to find the most accurate wording. We correct the article and note at the foot of the article it has been corrected, and how. Corrections are very rare, but when they do occur the response from readers is generally very positive – readers appreciate an honest and open corrections policy.</p>
<p>What do you think? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comments section below.</p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There’s now a global network of factcheck units, operating in myriad different languages. However, none have a process quite like ours at The Conversation. Here’s a step-by-step guide to how we do it.Sunanda Creagh, Senior EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/516502015-12-06T19:13:49Z2015-12-06T19:13:49ZHow journalists can start winning the battle against politicians’ lies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104353/original/image-20151204-29702-1sni7cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump has taken political 'lies' to a new level during his campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Evan Semon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Politicians lie. To varying degrees, they always have. But it is starting to seem that that truism is more true than it has ever been.</p>
<p>In 2012, American political commentator Charles P. Pierce <a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15551/rnc-tampa-night-one-12158408/">claimed that</a> the Republican Party was setting out in search of the “event horizon of utter bullshit” at its national convention that year. It wanted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… to see precisely how many lies, evasions, elisions, and undigestible chunks of utter gobbledegook the political media can swallow before it finally gags twice and falls over dead.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And then along came Donald Trump and Ben Carson, who proceeded to knock things up a notch or two. These two candidates for the Republican presidential nomination for 2016 have appeared to reach entirely new levels of political indifference to the truth.</p>
<p>Carson – who <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grain">drew mockery</a> for suggesting Egypt’s pyramids were built to store grain – has had several key anecdotes in his autobiography challenged. Meanwhile, fact-checking website Politifact <a href="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/statements/?page=1">has rated</a> only one of his substantial claims during the campaign as “mostly true”. The rest were either “half true”, “mostly false”, “false”, or “pants on fire”.</p>
<p>Despite leading the race, Trump has made so many obviously or demonstrably <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/30/opinions/obeidallah-trump-pants-on-fire/">false statements</a> along the way that some experts have been forced to <a href="http://pressthink.org/2015/11/i-will-try-to-explain-why-the-trump-candidacy-has-been-so-confounding-to-our-political-press/">completely re-think</a> long-held assumptions about:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the rules [of politics and elections] … and what the penalty would be for violating them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the past, a politician saying something factually inaccurate was cause for humiliation. Now there appears to be few consequences, if any. If journalism is supposed to be a force for truth, accountability and enlightenment in the political process, then it appears to be failing on the biggest of stages.</p>
<h2>Why?</h2>
<p>Thoughtful analyses of this situation almost always point to one of two possible explanations: generally, that the media is “biased”, and/or that politics has become “dumbed down” for easier audience consumption – just like any other kind of entertainment.</p>
<p>Like many others, journalist Matt Taibbi <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dumb-for-tv-news-20151125#ixzz3t1fFM7bM">blames</a> journalism’s blunted edge on the commercial pressures in the newsroom:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We in the media have spent decades turning the news into a consumer business that’s basically indistinguishable from selling cheeseburgers or video games.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Though there is certainly some truth in that argument, it has a couple of major weaknesses.</p>
<p>One is that even if we do accept that there has been an increase in “soft” news, that doesn’t mean that the “hard” forms have gone away. Plenty of journalists are still out there asking the tough questions and undertaking comprehensive analysis. </p>
<p>Another is that the economic climate in the media means journalists need to keep justifying (or funding) their own salaries, and there is no better way of doing so than by “scooping” a rival, or taking down a big political name. Financial pressure often creates more journalistic adversarialism.</p>
<p>It would take a very cynical person to suggest that every working journalist today has sold their soul to corporate interests, or that there isn’t still a huge audience out there for investigative reporting, hard-hitting interviews, and the exposure of political malfeasance.</p>
<p>As proof of this, one only has to think about the extensive <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2014/05/21/leaked-documents-cast-doubt-abbotts-60k-scholarship-claims/">probing</a> around the Whitehouse Institute scholarship awarded to Frances Abbott, or Sarah Ferguson’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sarah-ferguson-interview-with-joe-hockey-breached-abc-bias-guidelines-review-20150216-13gbmj.html">post-2014 budget interview</a> with Australia’s then-treasurer Joe Hockey.</p>
<p>So, while good journalism is still out there, there are few consequences for politicians who lie.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZNu3u4rkNU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sarah Ferguson’s hard-hitting interview with Joe Hockey attracted praise and criticism.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An alternative explanation</h2>
<p>If we assume that journalists and politicians are co-dependent adversaries with competing interests (one side with political goals, the other dedicated to facts and truth), then there <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Australian-TV-News-Functions-Futures/dp/1841507172">has been</a> – as my colleague Brian McNair puts it – a “communicative arms race” going on between the two.</p>
<p>Right now, politicians tend to win the battles – not just because they have better resources (such as whole teams of media advisors), but because journalists (their enemy) operate in such predicable ways.</p>
<p>Journalism is an incredibly homogeneous activity. Around the globe, almost without exception, it looks the same, sounds the same, and follows same arbitrary rules. American media professor Jay Rosen <a href="http://pressthink.org/2015/11/i-will-try-to-explain-why-the-trump-candidacy-has-been-so-confounding-to-our-political-press/">uses the term</a> “isomorphism” to describe this, and the consequence is that politicians have slowly worked out how to game their opponents.</p>
<p>For example, genre and production standards mean that if you repeat the same five-to-ten-second soundbite during an interview (no matter the question being asked), chances are that soundbite will survive the editing process and appear in the television news that evening.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jlTggc0uBA8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Former UK Labour leader Ed Miliband talks in soundbites.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the limitations on space, time and attention, coupled with an obsession with timeliness, mean it is quite easy for politicians to circumvent thorough journalistic analysis while still feigning transparency. This was evident when heavily “spun” pronouncements or weak policies were regularly released just before major newsroom deadlines. </p>
<p>Now, it is commonplace to bury bad news by releasing it late on the Friday before a long weekend – or, as in one <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1358985/Sept-11-a-good-day-to-bury-bad-news.html">famous example</a>, waiting for a much bigger news story to come along.</p>
<p>Journalists are also heavily dependent on getting exclusives and “insider” information. Politicians can thus easily threaten to limit a less senior reporter’s access if their coverage ever becomes too critical.</p>
<p>All of this is made possible, ironically, by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/objectivity-when-ministers-journalists-and-a-norm-collide-47414">objectivity</a> on which journalists stake their reputations. Taibbi <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dumb-for-tv-news-20151125">notes</a> that when a lie gains attention, politicians can just:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Blame the backlash on media bias and walk away a hero.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Too often this objectivity means journalists will not call out or vigorously pursue a false statement for fear of being seen as biased, and instead rely on one of that person’s political opponents to do the job instead. This leads to “he said, she said” reportage that leaves ordinary citizens little the wiser. </p>
<p>I did an interview recently with a well-known Australian media producer who called this, appropriately, “balance disease”. </p>
<h2>How to fix it</h2>
<p>There are a number of things that may help journalists start winning the battle of truth.</p>
<p>First, and perhaps most importantly, we need to look very closely at the way we train future journalists, particularly in academic contexts. We need ensure that journalism programs are not a homogenising force that leave graduates open for exploitation by clued-up politicians. We should encourage student experimentation, rule-breaking and creativity, not deferential adherence to pre-defined operational standard.</p>
<p>Second – given the failure of “fact checking” as a practice to solve the issue of political lies, and the now widely shared assumption that politicians will lie regularly – journalists need to start paying less attention to “facts” and more attention to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html">internal logic</a> of a politician’s own arguments. </p>
<p>Finally, journalists themselves need to regain some confidence. The co-dependence means that politicians need journalists just as much as journalists need access to politicians. If every journalist ended an interview the moment a politician clearly lied, or refused to answer a question, they would quickly realise just how much firepower they really have at their disposal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51650/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Harrington receives funding from the Australian Research Council, as a Chief Investigator for the Discovery Project 'Politics, media and democracy in Australia: public and producer perceptions of the political public sphere’ (DP130100705).</span></em></p>If journalism is supposed to be a force for truth, accountability and enlightenment in the political process, then it appears to be failing on the biggest of stages.Stephen Harrington, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.