Fact checking seems to happen more to right-wing voices than left-wing ones

Major fact-checking organizations seem to target right-wing voices – but is that because they’re putting out more misinformation?

Control over the spread of information has become hugely contested – as has the extent to which that information is correct or not. The ease with which dis- and misinformation can spread on social media is a thorny issue for social platforms and those trying to keep on track of the truth, which explains the rise of factchecking organisations like Snopes and PolitiFact.

But a recent study by researchers from Luxembourg, China, and Germany suggests that the facts those organizations choose to check can depend on your politics. The researchers analyzed 35,014 true and false statements checked and vetted by Snopes and PolitiFact and found that fact-checking was not always equal across the political divide.

The research highlights a broad asymmetry in the treatment of political elites in fact-checking. False statements referencing Democrats are 88% more likely to be fact-checked than true statements, while Republicans are 26.5% less likely to feature in such contexts.

This gap echoes broader patterns suggesting that false narratives favoring Republicans spread on social media more widely, potentially influencing the focus of fact-checking organizations.

Political debate polarised – and poisoned?

That focus on political elites was important, the researchers say, reflecting what fact-checking organizations choose to prioritize their efforts on. False statements mentioning political elites are 20% more likely to be fact-checked than true ones, indicating that misinformation often targets or involves key political figures, the academics suggest.

The level at which fact-checking occurs increases and intensifies as elections draw near, with the researchers saying that highlights the link between politicization and the spread of misinformation. Months leading up to elections see a surge in politically charged false statements, driven by candidates’ campaigns and public engagement.

Politics can also be emotional, and it’s here that fact-checking comes into its own. Statements fact-checked as false are more likely to evoke “other-condemning emotions,” such as anger, contempt, and disgust, especially when targeting opposing political groups. Exploiting those emotions helps to polarise audiences, reinforcing in-group loyalties and exacerbating divides, the academics believe.

No deliberate bias

The findings will be welcomed by right-wing voices, who allege that social network algorithms are often biased against people who share their opinions. This is despite reams of evidence to the contrary that social networks have a right-wing bias, promoting theirs rather than their opponents’ voices. But it shouldn’t be taken as a vindication of their beliefs.

The study stops short of accusing fact-checkers of explicit bias but does suggest that their selection processes are influenced by the nature of misinformation itself, which is often partisan and polarising.

Instead, the findings highlight how important it is to provide transparency on who gets fact-checked – including how and why – to maintain public trust and the credibility of their verdicts.

More than anything, the research helps contribute to the fightback against fake news. It examines the interplay between misinformation, political elites, and fact-checking while providing a better understanding of the challenges faced to curb fake news in such a hyper-partisan age.

In a time when the leader of the so-called free world habitually claims that any negative coverage about him is fake news, it’s never been more important to maintain balance and vigilance in the fight against misinformation to protect democratic discourse. Our very future could be at stake if we don’t.