Fact-checkers have grown recently, facing the decline of journalism and the acceleration of disinformation flows on the internet. Due to the recent scholarly attention to these journalistic outlets, some authors have pointed to diverse critics such as the political bias and the low impact of fact-checking initiatives. In line with the research approaching the weaponization of disinformation in politics, this chapter reflects on the instrumentalization of verifying practices as a fact to consider when studying fact-checking. The investigation applies a combined methodology to compare Bendita and Maldita initiatives. While the latter is internationally recognized as an entity of fact-checking, the second one arises as an imitation of it and lacks recognition and scholarly attention. Conclusions suggest that fact-checking implies more complex activities than refuting specific facts, while alt-right positions can instrumentalize fact-checking for political objectives. The authors call for the importance of definitions that exclude this type of misuse of verification.
TopIntroduction
Fact-checking is a relatively new term (Graves, 2017) that has reached a timely fashion in the last few years to the point that some authors consider it an innovative form of news coverage (Nyhan et al., 2020). Initiatives for verifying information have exponentially multiplied all over the world (Dias & Sippitt, 2020). Most of the countries, both from the North and the Global South, have active fact-checkers in the current times (Graves & Cherubini, 2016), and organizations that launch them are diverse, from media outlets to NGOs.
Although based on journalism practices and the verification values, fact-checkers differ from other media outlets (Singer, 2018, 2020), focusing on giving evidence about specific facts and claims (Amazeen, 2019). They can be embraced as a response to the recent disinformation context (Amazeen, 2019; Tuñón Navarro, Oleart, & Bouza García, 2019), tackling the existence of hoaxes and false news on the Internet. Their central visibility in political processes and media environment has attracted scholarly investigations that approach fact-checking from different approaches (Burel et al., 2020), compressing their dynamics, audience, and impact on public opinion.
However, fact-checkers are not free from criticism. Some studies have proved that one content could be differently verified (Lim, 2018) and recognize the need to evaluate their method of evaluation to gain effectiveness (Dias & Sippitt, 2020). Other authors have shown a minimal effect of their activity on the political behavior of citizens (Nyhan et al., 2020) and, in turn, have reflected whether users choose accuracy rather than ideological reinforcement (Bakir & McStay, 2018; Wardle, 2018).
This investigation aims to critically reflect on fact-checkers considering the weaponization of truth (Molina et al., 2019). That is, just as some political factions can construct their discourse pointing to the falsehood of political opponents’ claims, the chapter suggests that fact-checkers could also be instrumentalized to expose certain viewpoints (i.e., alt-right ideologies), prioritizing the reinforcement of arguments over a journalism practice.
Combining qualitative and quantitative data, the investigation compares two initiatives that present themselves as fact-checkers: Bendita and Maldita. The latter is a verification project that has attracted interest from previous research (i.e., Magallón-Rosa, 2018; Bernal-Treviño & Clares-Gavilán, 2019; Vázquez-Herrero et al., 2019) that identifies it as one of the central fact-checking platforms in Spain. Maldita presents international recognition as well as is a member of the International Fact-Checking Network. Moreover, Bendita is a newer initiative that has not seconded the principles of IFCN, and its activity is yet to be investigated in Spanish scholarly literature.
This chapter aims to analyze the structure and content of two entities that call themselves fact-checkers by seeing if they meet the values that characterize them. This goal includes five specific objectives: 1) Examine the aesthetics of Maldita and Bendita. 2) Explore their structure and organization, 3) Analyze their activities and topics of fact-checking, 4) Identify the scrutinized subjects and the sources employed in their verification practices. 5) Measure the engagement of each message in their Twitter profiles. We consider this type of comparison to be novel in fact-checker research and expect that the results could lead to similar international work, including comparisons between different local contexts.