A Six-year Mapping of Fact-Checks Shows Growing Partnership Between
Newsrooms and Fact-Checking Organisations in Nigeria
Abstract
Concerns have been raised over the capacity of fact-checkers to
contain a barrage of fake content going viral on a daily basis. In a bid to
live up to their billings, independent fact-checkers have partnered with
various stakeholders in the information disorder ecosystem. One of these is the
newsrooms.
The aim of this partnership is to amplify the culture of truth
and accountability in public discourse in the country. But is this partnership
growing? What is the evidence of growth? Can this be measured? Are there
impacts on both parties? What is the thematic focus of their fact-checking
efforts? And who makes the most suspicious claims they fact-check?
To answer these questions, this study relies on mapping the
fact-checks published within a period of six years; that is from March 2015 to
September 2020 (in the online platforms) of a selected print media. With 177
data analysed, the study makes very significant contributions to the research
questions.
One, findings show a steady progression of newsrooms’ uptake of
fact-checking, ranging from a paltry 1.7% (n=2) in 2015 to 44.5% (n=52) in
2020.
Two, as 23.1% (n=27) fact-checks were sourced externally, the
impact of the partnership is shown in a symbiosis that promotes the publication
of syndicated contents from independent fact-checkers.
Three, this study finds that Nigerian news media is responding
to the fact-checking landscape, having shown that the majority of contents
(77%; n=90) published within the period were internal fact-checks.
Four, regarding sources of suspicious claims being fact-checked,
the study corroborates existing research which affirms social media platforms as
the major sources of fake and suspicious claims in the public space (35.9%;
n=42), while media sources remain minimal (4.3%; N=5). It also reveals the
culpability of government agencies, including the presidency, government
officials, and politicians for spreading suspicious claims (50.4%; n=59).
Lastly, as this study captures only the growth of fact-checking
in the news media, its scope is lacking in audience perspective to
fact-checking consumption. It therefore recommends future research in audience
interest in fact-checks, examining how audiences consume fact checks– what
medium is most useful and in what format? Does fact checking make a difference
in the audience’s news consumption habits?
Introduction
Existing literature has captured evidence of a partnership between
fact-checking organisations and newsrooms in Nigeria and part of the fallout of
this partnership is the favourable impact of fact-checking training recorded on
the output of the Nigerian journalists (Raji, 2020). Fact-Checking organisations
in Nigeria have been involved in a partnership with technology companies, such as
face book’s ‘third-party fact-checking programme’ to assess the accuracy of
news and other contents online (Cable, 2019).
This partnership often takes the form of fellowship programmes
with newsrooms to promote the culture of truth, accountability in newsrooms,
and wider reach for fact-checked contents in the public space. In one of such
proposed fact-checking fellowship programme organised by Dubawa Nigeria and
supported by Heinrich Boll Stiftung, a German foundation that works with civil
societies and other democratic stakeholders, Chibueze Ebii, the Communication
Manager in Nigeria said: “The aim of the fellowship is to foster a culture of
fact-checking in newsrooms and hopefully encourage newsrooms to have
fact-checking desks” (Premium Times, 2019).
Ananny (2020) has highlighted similar partnerships to
include the one by ProPublica’s numerous partnerships with other news
organizations and collaboration with audiences on everything from fighting hate
speech to explaining election processes;
The study also reveals the technology-focused partnerships
which involved Facebook’s Instant Articles, Snap-Chat’s Discover, Google’s
Accelerated Mobile Pages, Twitter’s Amplify, and Amazon’s discounted access for
subscribers to The Washington Post.
A similar one was with Tech and Check Cooperative’s project
which aims at bringing together universities, the Internet Archive, and Google
for automated, real-time fact-checking on the U.S. State of the Union address.
Again, there was First Draft’s CrossCheck Newsroom project
that convenes technology companies (Google and Facebook are partners),
international news organizations, and online metrics and analytics companies to
fight the circulation of misinformation (Ananny,
2018).
Given the above background, and having established the fact that
relationships exist between independent fact-checkers and newsrooms in Nigeria,
there is a need to examine the growth prospects of such relationships. There is
little or no debate on whether information disorder has become endemic and
efforts to catch up with its trendy pace need a multiple end-prong. So, the
symbiotic relationship among stakeholders in the misinformation eco-system must
be developed, sustained, and nourished. Based on the foregoing, this study
seeks to provide answers to the following relevant questions:
·
What is the evidence of a growing
partnership between newsrooms and fact-checking organisations in Nigeria and
how do we measure this growth?
·
How does the partnership impact on
the fact-checkers and newsrooms in Nigeria?
·
How are the newsrooms responding to
the fact-checking landscape in Nigeria and to what prospects?
·
What exactly has been the thematic
focus of fact-checking efforts of newsrooms and independent fact-checkers in
Nigeria?
·
Whose claims do news media and
fact-checkers verify?
To answer these questions, this study leverages on a set of
goals. These include to:
·
examine evidence of growing
partnership between newsrooms and fact-checking organisations in Nigeria and
how this growth can be measured.
·
examine how the selected news
media support other fact-checking organisations to fight information disorder
by promoting shared-contents externally sourced on their platforms.
·
evaluate fact-checking efforts of the
news media and fact-checking organisations around three major thematic areas,
including (i) Politics/Elections ii) Financial/Economic matters, and (iii)
Health.
·
investigate the personalities and
institutions behind major claims which fact-checkers and news media
verify.
Justifying
the Partnership
The need for partnership in the first place has been explained
by various sources. Some of these include the fact that media and communication
institutions are generally believed to be weak. There are also reservations
about whether it is professionally ethical for fellow journalists to fact-check
reports from other media organisations even when such reports were laced with
unverified claims.
Journalists also faced the challenges of verifying claims made
by employers, organisations’ advertisers (Raji, 2020) and other interested
parties including ownership interest, government control among others. Some of
these constitute various challenges newsrooms encounter which require
collaboration with independent outfits in order to navigate the changing nature
of the media landscape and challenges posed to it by fake contents.
Given these challenges, fact-checkers are looking at bigger
pictures in their partnership with newsrooms, knowing the available mutual
benefits. One of these is equipping newsrooms to deliver on their mandates
without necessarily being hit by undue influence under any guise. Another is
creating wider reach for fact-check contents in terms of content-sharing.
Claire Wardle, co-founder at the First Draft, said it is
imperative for newsrooms to collaborate to tackle mis/disinformation as no one
can do it alone. “We don’t think it makes sense for newsrooms to be competitive
when it comes to helping audiences navigate information disorder. It doesn’t
make sense to have 25 newsrooms all debunking the same meme” (Daniel Green,
2019).
With the level of trending fake contents and hoaxes, even media
houses are vulnerable to misinformation as they are already battling content
credibility issues. Partnership in terms of training, skills and capacity
building for newsrooms to be able to spot and debunk hoaxes should be
paramount. Justifying the need to collaborate to achieve a common cause, Wardle
said:
Given the widespread nature of false claims on social
media…skills in verification and fact-checking should be a core part of any
curriculum for aspiring journalists…These skills need to go beyond simply
telling audiences whether the content is true or not; it is also about accuracy
and trustworthiness (Daniel Green, 2019).
Also justifying partnership between Fact-Checkers and newsrooms,
Ananny (2018, quoting Lucas Graves…) says fact-checkers: practice journalism in
the networked mode. They linked promiscuously to outside news sources,
encourage other reporters to cite their work, and strike distributions deal
with major media organisations. Fact-checkers have achieved a high profile in
media-political networks
This reminds us that verification or fact-checking is a
conscious aspect of journalism to identify and amplify the truth of the fact.
Legacy media has exposed itself to erosion of confidence as its audience no
longer feel the impact. There is a need to remedy this situation. As
journalists themselves are sometimes unclear about what role fact-checking can
or should play in their work (Ananny, 2018), that is why fact-checking
organisations must take it upon themselves to channel the course of partnership
and collaboration in form of training, fellowship, encouraging newsrooms to
cite their fact-checks and also engage in internal fact-checking of claims that
have strong impact on public discourse.
In measuring partnership from other land, Ananny’s (2018) review
of partnership between Facebook and a selected fact-checking organisations
shows similar measuring methodology with this current study in terms of mapping
published fact-checks. For instance, Ananny made a reference to how Politifact
used the number of fact-checks it did while partnering with Facebook’s third
party arrangement:
PolitiFact has used it to check about 2,000 URLs since the
partnership began— which is a lot, considering the outlet has published about
15,000 fact checks in its entire 10-year history. To cover that much ground in
one a year with this Facebook tool is a sign of success.
Fact-Checking
Organisations in Focus
There are currently six fact-checking organisations in Nigeria.
These include Africa-Check, Dubawa Nigeria, AFP Nigeria, Peoples’Check Nigeria,
FactHub Check Nigeria, Round-Check Nigeria and Cross-Check Nigeria (Folarin,
2020). These organisations came into existence in Nigeria between 2016 and
2020, the period this study captures.
There is little or no debate that the setting up of these
organisations in Nigeria coincides with the period the term “fake news” assumes
a different dimension in the World. The term “fake news” was named Collins’
Word of the Year 2017. As its usage rose by 365% since 2016 (Independent,
2017), the timing is also significant in how their setup coincides with the
period the term “fake news” contributes to the undermining of society’s trust
in news reporting.
The period (particularly as related to the 2016 presidential
election in America), highlighted a tension among journalists as they were
often caught between two odds: that is, trying to figure out how to call out
and contextualise the lies and misleading statements of office holders, and having
to defend their own work against politicians and fellow media producers who
called fact-checks or undesirable stories “fake news” (Ananny, 2017).
This was the period during which the mistrust in the public
space rose to the level at which there was a strong impression that journalists
and politicians were liars. Ananny concludes that the period was “a watershed
moment for intersections between technology and politics, journalists’ and
fact-checkers’ relationships to verification and accountability reporting, and
popular understandings of political truth.”
As noted earlier, the collaboration between fact-checkers and
the media often takes the form of networked model where fact-checkers “linked
promiscuously to outside news sources, encourage other reporters to cite their
work, and strike distributions deals with major media organisations.” This is
the focus of this study.
Research
Approach
This study adopts a quantitative research approach which seeks
to leverage on the content analysis of the fact-checks published mainly on the
websites of the selected news media within a period of six years: March
2015-September, 2020.
For ease of tracking the fact-checks, the study restricted the
fact-checks search to only the online versions of the newspapers under review,
using specific Keywords search such as “fact check, Nigeria”, “fact-checking”,
“Cross-Check Nigeria, “Dubawa Nigeria”, “fact-checks in The Punch,”
“fact-checks in The Guardian Nigeria,” “fact-checks in Nigerian Tribune”,
“fact-checks in Daily Trust”, “fact-checks in Sahara Reporters”, “fact-checks
in The Cable”, “fact-checks in Premium Times”.
Exploring google search engine with these keywords, a
total of 132 fact-checks were tracked. For ease of inputting, sorting and
analysing the data, a database was built, using google spreadsheet (see the
link: Mapping Take-Up of
Fact-Checking in the Nigerian Newsrooms); and to clean up the data,
the identification of the relevant fact-checking articles in the selected media
were determined by fulfilling certain parameters. By these criteria:
·
We included articles identified
primarily as fact-checking reports that check and verify factual statements and
claims with the aim of establishing the truthfulness, correctness or
authenticity of the assertion based on verifiable facts (n=117);
·
We excluded fact-checks that
were published on the newspapers’ social media platforms (n=6);
·
We excluded contents similar to
fact-checking items published for the purpose of correcting editorial errors
(n=4);
·
We also excluded fact-checks used or
referenced in news format, features or opinions (n=5);
·
A total of 117 fact-checks were
analysed for this study.
Meanwhile, the variables used for data collection were (i)
yearly publication of fact-checks (ii) number of fact-checks published per news
medium (iii) Quantity of contents shared by the news media iv) Sources of
claims fact-checked, and (v) Thematic focus of the fact-checks.
Target
Population
The target population for this study was taken to be all
newsrooms in Nigeria: Mainstream, Digital, and online platforms that have
partnered with fact-checking organisations earlier identified in Folarin (2020)
in terms of training, fellowship, contents sharing, among others. For instance,
45 newsrooms participated in a fact-checking training with FirstDraft in 2018
and collaborated to do election related fact-checks during the Nigerian 2019
general elections (firstdraft.org, 2018).
Sample Group
The sample group was of selected newsrooms with the proviso
that:
·
They are national in scope with wide
readership;
·
They are digital newsrooms with clear
editorial independence and also with wide readership;
·
Each of the newspapers has published
at least eight fact-checks on
its website within the period under review.
·
These include: Daily Trust, The
Punch, Nigerian Tribune and The Guardian representing mainstream print media;
·
The Cable, Sahara Reporters and
Premium Times representing online media.
Justifying
the period under review (2015-2020)
The period being reviewed in this study is quite significant
based on a number of reasons:
1.
During the period, Africa Check,
being the first fact-checking organization in Africa set up an office in Lagos
Nigeria in 2016 and even witnessed its major growth between 2015-2016 (Anim Van
Wyk, 2020);
2.
Dubawa, the first Nigerian
independent fact-checking outfit was established in 2018 (Daily Trust, 2018);
3.
Based on the preliminary checks done
for this study, Africa-Check’s content had appeared in Nigeria’s newspapers
within the period, particularly in 2015, even before it set up its office in
Lagos; hence, the decision to track activities from 2015 (Researchers
preliminary check on google search, 2020);
4.
The period also witnessed series of
collaborations between newsrooms and independent fact-checkers in Nigeria
through fellowship programme (Daily Trust, 2020), and fact-checking training by
the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Reporting through Dubawa
fact-checking project (Premium Times, May 2018) as well as by CrossCheck,
Nigeria’s outlet supervised by the International Centre for Investigative
Reporting in December, 2018 (Ricchiardi, 2018).
Results to the five research questions that guided this study
are presented below.
Findings/
Results/Discussion
Q.1. What is the evidence of growing partnership between newsrooms and
fact-checking organisations in Nigeria? How do we measure this growth?
Table 1.Total distribution for the period (2015-2020)
Table (1) above shows a total of 117 fact-checks published by
selected newspapers between March 2015 and September 2020. From a paltry
of only 2 fact-checks (1.7%) in 2015 through 8 (6.8%) in 2016, to 9 (7.7%) in
2017. The number grew in 2018 to 12 fact-checks (10.3) with a rapid flight of
34 fact-checks (29%) in 2019 and 52 fact-checks (44.5%) in 2020.
The volume of fact-checks published by newsrooms within the
period shows evidence of growing partnership between the parties. Judging from
table (1) above, there was a seamless upward progression in the volume of
fact-checks published by the newsrooms from 2015 to 2020. Common reasoning for
the yearly progression cannot be far-fetched from series of collaboration
between independent fact-checkers and newsrooms. For instance, the 2018
collaborative efforts between sixteen newsrooms in Nigeria and First-Draft,
spearheaded by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR)
under the CrossCheck Nigeria Project, in preparation for Nigeria’s 2019 general
election (Jacob Granger, 2018) apparently promoted the surge in fact-checks
recorded from just 10% in 2018 to 29% in 2019.
Measuring
the growth
The surge in fact-check reports published over time is very
significant in measuring the growing partnership between both parties. Probable
reasons for the surge could be traced to a number of developments taking place
over years. One of these include the amount of claims available for
fact-checkers to verify in the pre-election period through the election proper
and post-election. For instance, in the 2019 election, WhatsApp reportedly
promised to grant API access to First Draft, an effort that would enable “the
entire team to have access to the back-end data on one dashboard coming into
that single phone number” (Jacob Granger, 2018).
Also, the sharp increase in the fact-checks published from 29%
in 2019 to 44.5% in 2020 shows some level of dynamism in the pattern of
collaboration recorded. This sharp increase would not be far removed from the
efforts of the media and independent fact-checkers in Nigerian to double their
strategies to counter massive mis/disinformation that greeted the outbreak of
COVID 19, a global pandemic that shook the World in 2020. The year witnessed
more collaborations even from information stakeholders in the health sector, as
seen in the case of National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) partnering with
media and independent fact-checkers to stem the tide of information disorder
amidst the global tension (Premium Times, 2020).
Another milestone that likely helped newsrooms increase
fact-checks in 2020 can be traced to new tools being developed by fact-checking
organisations to help newsrooms have access to information. An instance of this
was a technology, InfoFinder,
from Africa-Check which “allows journalists, policymakers, researchers and the
public to search for information within a carefully selected collection of more
than 250 facts from Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa” (Africa-Check,
2020).
Q.2. How are the newsrooms responding to the fact-checking
landscape in Nigeria?
Table 2: Distribution of fact-checks across newsrooms
The table above shows the distribution of fact-checks across the
newspapers under review. Findings show Premium Times published the highest with
30 fact-checks (25.6%); followed by The Guardian with 29 (24.8%); The Cable, 15
fact-checks (12.8%); The Punch, 14 (12%); Nigerian Tribune, 12 (10.3%); Daily
Trust 9 (7.7%). Sahara Reporters published the lowest with 8 (at 6.8%).
Statistics in Table (2) show the significant level of
fact-checkers available within the newsrooms under review. This is evidence
that the culture of fact-checking is gradually taking root within the media
landscape. While the scope of this study did not extend to verifying the
availability of physical fact-checking desks in the newsrooms being reviewed,
the fact that the news media are beginning to have dedicated sections on their
platforms for published fact-checks shows a significant dimensions in the
patterns of their responses to the need to explore fact-checking journalism.
This is where fact-checking journalism is helping the news media fulfill its
social responsibilities of informing, educating and holding politicians
accountable.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (2018) gave a background to
the fore-going. Before the digital revolution, checks and balances existed in
the newsroom. Journalists and editors had time, they weren’t constantly rushing
to the next story. And often, they had a fact-checker. Someone whose sole job
it was to verify the information being reported. Fact-checkers and copy editors
were once the first line of defense against misinformation. Yet, in the great
newsroom purges of the last decade, fact-checkers have become a luxury most
newsrooms cannot afford. This was the beginning of mistrust and credibility
issue in the news media.
However, the perspective offered by Laura Dattaro (2018) in the
Columbia Journalism Review corroborates the position of this study that
fact-checking journalism comes handy in the face of mistrust and
content-credibility issue in the media:
The mistrust arising from this inconsistency points to the larger role of fact-
checking, beyond ensuring accuracy and helping to avoid lawsuits. Journalists
trade on reliability, to their readers, to their sources, and to the public that they
serve. An independent fact-checking process provides another layer of assurance
to all
parties that a story best represents the truth…
Q 3. How does the partnership impact the fact-checkers and
newsrooms in Nigeria?
Table 3: Content-sharing between Newsrooms and Fact-Checking
Organisations
Table (3) above shows that the greatest percentage of
fact-checks (76.9%; n=90) published by Nigerian newsrooms between the period
was a product of internal fact-checking efforts. In terms of content-sharing,
8.55% (n=10) of the published contents was from Africa-Check, followed by that
of Dubawa which form 4.3% (n=5). The Cable shared 4 contents from CDD,
representing (3.4%). Others form 6% of the total content items.
Statistics in tables (3) above aim at providing answers to the
question on the impact of the collaborative efforts of both parties in stemming
the scourge of mis/disinformation. The idea of large scale fact-checking is at
the heart of partnership. While fact-checkers are assured of a wider audience
for their contents, the trust-base of the newsrooms is also growing among their
audience. By this, both partners succeed in tracking and controlling the spread
of misinformation.
Similarly, the impact of the partnership on both parties can be
understood in terms of the content-sharing model adopted by both parties. This
has been the norm often practised by fact-checkers to promote wider reach of
their contents. As revealed by an Africa Check editor, Anim Van Wyk (2020),
besides fact-checking, “Africa Check syndicates its content to other news
organisations to republish free of charge, provided proper attribution is
given.” This revelation copiously played out in the media being reviewed.
For instance, 10.3% of fact-checks in The Guardian were shared
from external sources (from Africa Check and others). In The Punch, 28.6% of
its contents was from Africa Check; Daily Trust shared 22.22% of its content
from Africa Check and CrossCheck. In the Nigerian Tribune, it was 8.3%; in The
Cable, 26.7% came from Centre from Democracy and Development (CDD); while 30%
of the fact-checks in Premium Times was shared from Africa Check, Dubawa and
others, Sahara Reporters had 50% of its fact-checks from Africa Check and
others.
The significance of this content-sharing of fact-lists can be
appreciated from the extent at which news media audiences can easily come in
contact with verified and debunked claims and compared with what has gone viral
on social media. This is in consonance with the perspective of the Centre for
Technology and Society (2018) we can easily turn to reputable news media that
produce fact-check reports on a regular basis. They can be used to monitor or
verify statements made by politicians who, knowing such tools exist, are
constrained from making false claims and are pressured to make statements more
cautiously.
Q4. What
exactly has been the thematic focus of fact-checking efforts of newsrooms and
independent fact-checkers in Nigeria?
Table 4: Distribution of Thematic Focus of Fact-Checks as
Published during the Period
There have been questions raised regarding the specific
thematic area to which news media and fact-checkers deploy verification tools.
To answer the question, this study consciously categorised all fact-checks
tracked in consonance with the thematic areas common to Dubawa and Africa Check
as the most vibrant independent fact-checking organisations in Nigeria. As
cited on Dubawa’s and Africa Check’s websites , these areas include: (i) Health
(ii) Economy, and (iii) Politics/Election(https://dubawa.org/about-us/our-fact-check-process/https://africacheck.org).
As statistics above indicated, more than half of the total
fact-checks (55.5%; n=65) focus on economic and financial themes. These include
issues around financial market, budgetary and fiscal allocations. While 30%
(n=36) border on Health issues, 14.5% (n=17) focus on Political and Electoral
matters. These include discussions around political parties, election
campaigns/manifestos and voting. As shown in table (5), news media paid more
attention to Economic and Governance issues during the period under review than
Politics and Health issues. The reasons for this may not be far-fetched.
First, none of these fact-checking organisations existed in
Nigeria in 2015 until 2016 when so much noise about politics and election was
already over. The only area news media could have focused on was economy and
governance, following the assumption of president Buhari in office in 2015.
Second, the finding which shows Health issues as the second most
fact-checked is in agreement with existing literature (Amobi, 2019) which affirms
that Africa Check verifies claims on the key areas of health and development,
and given that Africa-Check, in particular, often syndicates its contents in
the news media (Van Myk, 2020) has a considerable attention paid to health
issues being the pivotal element that gave birth to the organisation in the
first place. Again, the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 and its attendant
mis/disinformation warfare in Nigeria raised the bar of fact-checking
collaboration and content sharing on Health related issues in the news media.
Third, the number of fact-checks on politics/elections, as the
third most fact-checked issues, were published only in 2019 and a pocket of
occasions in 2020 during the Nigerian general and States’ elections following a
couple of fact-checking training, fellowship and collaboration on joint project
such as CrossCheck Nigeria project which targeted tackling information disorder
during the elections.
Q 5. Whose Claims did News Media and Fact-Checkers Verify?
Table 5: Sources of Claims Fact-Checked
As seen in the above table, social media users constitute the
highest number of sources of claims (35.9%; n=42) subjected to verification by
fact-checkers during the period. Following closely were Government Officials
(22.22%; n=26). Nigeria’s Presidency came third among sources of claims being
fact-checked (15.38%; n=18). Politicians came less with 15 claims (12.8%) and
the Media came the least among known sources of claims (4.3%; n=5). Others
include 11 contents (9.4%).
Going by the statistics on claims made by “social media users”
(35.9%; n=42), this study corroborates a recent study by Adeniran (2020) that
“misinformation on potential cure, official policies and pronouncements…are
frequently shared on social media platforms in Nigeria”. However, contrary to
Adeniran’s assertion that “most information rated false were found to have
targeted government entities both locally and beyond”, this study observed that
government officials themselves were deep-necked in spreading suspicious claims
in the public space.
When taking into proper context, and sum up the number of
claims recorded against ‘Nigeria’s Presidency”, “Government Officials” and
“Politicians,” that is, (26+18+15 =59),
this finding suggests that “Governments officials” and “Politicians” constitute
major personalities and institutions with suspicious claims (50.4%; n=59) in
the public space.
Conclusion
This study is another major contribution to the existing
research interrogating impacts of fact-checkers’ work on the media,
institutions, news audience, and politicians (Adeniran, 2020, Raji, 2020,
Folarin 2020, Anim, 2020, Africa Check, Chequeado & Full Fact, 2020, Bob
Wekessa, 2017).
Mapping the fact-checks that were published in the selected
media within a period of six-years, that is from March 2015 to September, 2020,
findings show a steady progression of newsrooms’ uptake of fact-checking,
ranging from a paltry of 1.7% (n=2) in 2015 to 44.5% (n=52) in 2020.
This shows evidence of growing partnership between newsrooms and
fact-checking organisations in Nigeria. It is in furtherance of the impact of
this partnership that this study examines how newsrooms were responding to
fact-checking landscape and what exactly has been the thematic focus of the
newsrooms’ fact-checking efforts so far.
The study also made spirited efforts at contributing to
questions being raised over the culpability and otherwise of personalities,
institutions and platforms in the dissemination of fake and suspicious claims
in the public space. In examining this, the study corroborates Adeniran (2020)
that social media platforms remain the major sources of fake and suspicious
claims (35.9%; n=42), while media sources remain minimal (4.3%; N=5).
However, contrary to Adeniran (2020) that most information rated
false by fact-checkers were targeted at official entities to undermine
government efforts, this study finds that government agencies, including the
Presidency, government officials and politicians spread suspicious claims.
Another parameter suggesting a growing partnership is evident in
how newsrooms published syndicated fact-checks from independent fact-checkers.
The fallout of this is underscored in a symbiotic relationship where both
parties align on a common goal of tackling disinformation. This study posits
that the outcome of such collaborative effort simply means a shared-benefit
which promotes wider-reach for independent fact-checks and causes a surge in
the news media audience trust-base.
Interestingly, this study reveals another significant
contribution in terms of uptake of fact-checking in the Nigerian newsrooms.
Contrary to a study by Bob Wekesa et al (2017) which shows that, within a
period of five years, that is from 2012-2017, “the South African media is
mainly reliant on external sources for fact-checking, primarily Africa Check”,
this study shows that majority of fact-checks (77%; n=90) published in a period
of six years, from 2015 to 2020 in the Nigerian media were sourced internally.
Finally, this study finds that the majority of fact-checks
published within the period focused on Governance and Economy followed by
Health issues and less politics. The low number of fact-checks recorded on
politics could be due to the fact that only one general election has taken
place within the period. Overall, Nigerian media has proven, with this renewed
collaboration, fact-checking journalism has the potential to restore audience confidence
in the legacy news media. This is in line with the theory of change embraced by
Dubawa Nigeria which is about providing factual information and building
capacity of newsrooms to fact-check (Egwu, 2019). It is an effective effort to
rebuild and restore lost confidence in the news media.
On the flipside, the weak side of the fact-checking efforts of
the newsrooms is observed in a number of fact-checks across the media that were
either duplicated, repeated, or dubiously edited by other mediums and published
without clear attributions.
Recommendations
This research study explores only a quantitative approach to
generate large data and conduct content analysis of fact-checks published on
the newspapers’ online platforms. However, there is a need for a qualitative
approach such as in-depth interviews with news editors and reporters in order
to elicit perspectives on the analysed data.
Similarly, while this study stresses the prospect of
fact-checking journalism to restore trust in the legacy media, it proposes
further studies to examine the sustained impact of fact-checking on the
perceived reputation, trust and dependability of legacy media.
Further, fact-checkers need to expand their efforts in broadcast
journalism to meet the majority of audience members where they are, rather than
requiring them to embrace news media to access well-researched fact-checks.
This is the position by Riley (2019). Using broadcast journalism to fight
misinformation has its huge benefit as less than half of the World’s population
has internet access. In countries without reliable internet, radio, and TV are
the best way to give audiences factual content.
Lastly, as this study only captures the growth of fact-checking
in the news media, it is lacking in audience perspective to fact-checking
consumption. On this note, research in audience interest in fact-checking
journalism would be beneficial for media houses. How do audiences consume fact
checks – what medium is most useful and what format? Does fact checking make a
difference in their news consumption habits?
This
research is conducted for the Dubawa Fellowship programme (2020), and is
supported by Heinrich Boll Stiftung Foundation, to amplify the culture of truth
and contribute to the literature around information disorder
Comments
Post a Comment