Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Jen BirksEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws on the findings from Chaps.  3 and  4 to argue that fact-checking is at its most effective when it assesses truth claims in the context of the wider political argument rather than being limited to narrow empirical facts, which are often uncontested or defensibly accurate even when used misleadingly. The most contested political arguments typically hinge on less easily checkable truth claims, such as causal relationships and predictions, but it is not necessary for fact-checking to conclusively prove or disprove these claims but need only ask the appropriate critical questions to guide a ‘reasonable enough’ judgement. The audience may—contrary to the assumptions of social psychological effects research—have reasonable disagreement with the verdicts, but this does not invalidate their usefulness.

Keywords

Fact-checking Political argumentation Empirical truth Reasonable Interpretation Analytical journalism 

References

  1. Anstead, Nick, and Andrew Chadwick. 2018. ‘A Primary Definer Online: The Construction and Propagation of a Think Tank’s Authority on Social Media’, Media, Culture & Society, 40: 246–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cammaerts, Bart, Brooks DeCillia, and César Jimenez-Martínez. 2017. ‘Journalistic Transgressions in the Representation of Jeremy Corbyn: From Watchdog to Attackdog’, Journalism.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917734055.
  3. Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis (Routledge: Abingdon).Google Scholar
  4. Flynn, D. J., Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2017. ‘The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics’, Political Psychology, 38: 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fridkin, Kim, Patrick J. Kenney, and Amanda Wintersieck. 2015. ‘Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact-checking Influences Citizens’ Reactions to Negative Advertising’, Political Communication, 32: 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrett, R. Kelly, Erik C. Nisbet, and Emily K. Lynch. 2013. ‘Undermining the Corrective Effects of Media-Based Political Fact Checking? The Role of Contextual Cues and Naïve Theory’, Journal of Communication, 63: 617–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graves, Lucas, and Federica Cherubini. 2016. The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: Oxford).Google Scholar
  8. Uscinski, Joseph E., and Ryden W. Butler. 2013. ‘The Epistemology of Fact Checking’, Critical Review, 25: 162–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2003. ‘The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation’, Argumentation, 17: 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cultural, Media & Visual StudiesUniversity of Nottingham, University ParkNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations