Getting it right, eh? Best practices for post hoc fact-checking in Canadian news

Building on previous research mapping the terrain of the post hoc fact-checking practice in Canadian journalism, this research note evaluates the best methodology for verifying the accuracy of political and other claims and texts. Reviewing fact-checking projects—The Canadian Press Fact Checks, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Full Fact, Snopes, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker—offers several best-checking practices. These include additional research, how fact-checkers should choose the topics they scrutinize (facts, not opinions, often surrounding political campaigns, government, public policy, and health information), and the public interest and balance tests used to select suspicious claims usually made in parliamentary debates, media interviews, campaign speeches, and official records.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.22215/ff/v4.i1.05
Primary Topic
Media Studies and Communication
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Getting it right, eh? Best practices for post hoc fact-checking in Canadian news

Brad Clark, Brooks DeCillia
Media Studies and Communication
article

Getting it right, eh? Best practices for post hoc fact-checking in Canadian news

Brad Clark, Brooks DeCillia
article en

Abstract

Building on previous research mapping the terrain of the post hoc fact-checking practice in Canadian journalism, this research note evaluates the best methodology for verifying the accuracy of political and other claims and texts. Reviewing fact-checking projects—The Canadian Press Fact Checks, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Full Fact, Snopes, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker—offers several best-checking practices. These include additional research, how fact-checkers should choose the topics they scrutinize (facts, not opinions, often surrounding political campaigns, government, public policy, and health information), and the public interest and balance tests used to select suspicious claims usually made in parliamentary debates, media interviews, campaign speeches, and official records.

Vol. 4(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Media Studies and Communication
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.