Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Transparency is more than a motto for professional fact-checkers; it is a professional requirement that permeates their daily practice. Although transparency has been theorised and critiqued extensively in journalism studies, there has been less research on its practical implications for news workers. This paper aims to fill this gap by focusing on fact-checking practices in the Nordic countries. The paper highlights the double-edged sword of transparency by drawing on 14 semistructured interviews with fact-checkers and newsroom managers from the four independent fact-checking organisations in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Transparency is seen as a means to achieve accountability and credibility in reporting and as a tool to hold public figures accountable. However, transparency does not protect Nordic fact-checkers from criticism or harassment for delivering uncomfortable truths. This study also links fact-checkers discourses with the material traces of transparency on their respective websites, showing that transparency can be approached differently in practice. This research provides valuable insights into the nuanced role of transparency in fact-checkers’ daily routines while acknowledging its limitations in that transparency is not without flaws, even in societies characterised by a culture of openness and transparency.

Keywords

Ethics fact-checking information disorder journalism (profession)transparency

Introduction

“Information disorder” refers to a complex phenomenon related to fabricated messages that are spread online and mislead people or cause damage (Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017). Debates about the COVID-19 crisis and the Russian-Ukrainian war were polarised and manipulated, making conspiracy theories and propaganda particularly prominent and potentially harmful to citizenship, democratic values, and trust in news media (Oleinik and Paniotto, 2023; Ternullo, 2022). In these times of crisis, fact-checking activities emerge as a beacon of hope, a positive lever to counteract a growing sense that information can no longer be trusted (Seaton et al., 2020).

Epistemologically, fact-checking is deeply intertwined with journalism, embodying shared principles of truth-seeking and accuracy through a robust verification process (Ward, 2005). Allern (2019) argued that fact-checking is not a new concept in journalism, but rather a renewed emphasis on verifying the accuracy of information in the digital age. Over the past decade, the definition of fact-checking has also evolved from an internal journalistic process of checking facts before publication to a distinct sub-genre of journalism that evaluates previously published claims (Mena, 2019; Micallef et al., 2022; Singer, 2021). While fact-checking activities overlap with facts verification (Ekström and Westlund, 2019), professional fact-checking involves assessing the validity of public claims and debunking stories published on social media (Mena, 2019; Picha Edwardsson et al., 2023). As a distinct sub-genre of journalism, it is also strongly tied with the ethical principle of accuracy, considered central to accountability as well as an instrument for (re)building trust with audiences (Curry and Stroud, 2021; Humprecht, 2019, 2020; Karlsson, 2020).

The scientific literature also approaches fact-checking as a global movement, considering the importance of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFNC) and its commitment to promoting excellence in fact-checking (Graves, 2018; Mena, 2019). Transparency is the backbone of the IFCN standards, which encompass the principles of non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding and organisation, transparency of methodology, and an honest and open correction policy. Being a member of the IFCN has some implications, as the commitment to these standards is regularly assessed by independent experts to ensure the integrity of the fact-checking process and can, therefore, be considered an instrument for accountability.

Research on fact-checking and verification practices in the Nordic countries has primarily explored the relationship between journalists and technology (Picha Edwardsson et al., 2023) and how verification tools challenge journalists’ professional autonomy (Larssen, 2020). Despite the availability of a plethora of digital tools, professionals tend to use a limited number of the same tools due to a lack of knowledge or time to master them (Dierickx and Lindén, 2023; Picha Edwardsson et al., 2023). A study on the digital practices of Norwegian journalists also highlighted that, even in a tech-savvy environment, the use of digital tools remains limited, except in fact-checking, and contrasts with discourses on the potential of technology (Samuelsen et al., 2023).

As current or former members of the IFCN, the four Nordic fact-checking organisations examined in this study adhere to the standard of transparency. Rooted in professional journalism, they also adhere to the national ethical codes of their respective countries. None of these codes explicitly addresses the concept of transparency. This apparent gap prompts a crucial examination of the role of transparency as a central norm for Nordic fact-checkers. Therefore, this research seeks to understand the extent to which transparency is integrated into the daily practice of Nordic fact-checkers, the underlying value that these professionals place on transparency, and their perceptions of the relationship between trust and transparency. These aims are addressed through three research questions:

RQ1: How do Nordic fact-checkers operationalise transparency in their daily fact-checking practices?

RQ2: To what extent do Nordic fact-checkers value transparency in their work?

RQ3: How do journalists perceive the role of transparency in building and maintaining trust in fact-checking?

The fact-checkers participating in this research work in the four well-established fact-checking organisations in the Nordic countries: TjekDet in Denmark, FaktaBaari in Finland, Faktisk in Norway and Källkritikbyrån in Sweden. These organisations have strong links to journalism, either as a service first developed through news media companies or by employing professionals with a journalistic background. In addition, they are or were members of the IFCN. They all actively participate in the Nordic Observatory of Information Disorder (NORDIS), an integral part of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), a collaborative platform for practitioners, experts, technologists, and researchers to understand and analyse information disorders. Organised according to a newsroom model rooted in journalism (Graves and Cherubini, 2016), they all share a common institutional framework influenced by a “Nordic openness” perspective. This creates a Nordic cultural unity by promoting transparency in political decision-making (Robinson, 2020; Vesa, 2015) within a welfare state environment where society’s resilience to disinformation plays a central role (Grönvall, 2023).

Framing the concept of transparency

Transparency has permeated fact-checking and journalism as an ethical principle that can be approached in different ways, as it challenges established norms of journalistic control and decision-making autonomy, and raises complex questions about the evolving nature of media practices in digital environments. However, transparency in fact-checking and journalism shares common features in its aim to promote trust, credibility and accountability in the dissemination of information.

Transparency in fact-checking

The emergence of fact-checking as a global movement is rooted in a growing recognition of the importance of truth, accuracy and accountability in public discourse. This movement includes a diversity of actors who might have limited or no links to journalism (Graves and Cherubini, 2016). Nonetheless, they share common values, as evidenced by the growing number of fact-checking organisations worldwide participating in the International Fact-Checking Network (IFNC), which Poynter launched in 2015 to promote excellence in fact-checking. “We believe truth and transparency can help people be better informed and equipped to navigate harmful misinformation,” the IFCN website states. Becoming a member of the IFCN implies committing to the IFCN’s code of ethical principles, which is grounded in openness and transparency. The European Standard Fact-Checking Network (EFSCN), set up in 2023, shares the same commitments but at a European level.

Professional ethics can be approached using three complementary lenses: deontological ethics, which refers to duty and code of ethics; virtue ethics, which relates to one’s practices; and consequentialist ethics, which is based on what creates the least harm (Sanders, 2004). While journalists engage with these three approaches in their daily practice, none of them is strictly binding although they can be considered a moral, professional or social obligation. In the context of fact-checking, however, adherence to the ethical standards of organisations such as IFCN or EFSCN is subject to practical constraints. Each member of these international associations is subject to an annual external evaluation of its commitment, the results of which are made public. A positive assessment can be viewed as a guarantee of quality, as compliant organisations are invited to display a badge on their website.

Beyond the value of truthfulness, fact-checkers draw conclusions based on evidence and assess the claim’s veracity, that is its conformity with the facts (Singer, 2021). Nonetheless, fact-checkers have been regularly criticised, in particular for bias, partisanship, inconsistency, unscientific methods or factual judgments on subjective issues or opinions (Amazeen, 2015; Brandtzaeg and Følstad, 2017; Graves, 2017; Singer, 2021).

Transparency is not always at the forefront of fact-checkers’ ethical considerations. An international survey revealed that they consider it most important to correct information and enable citizens to be well-informed. Their five central ethical values were accuracy, impartiality, accountability, objectivity, and independence. Transparency came at the sixth position (Singer, 2021).

Another cross-national study compared transparency in fact-checks (Humprecht, 2020), focusing on the transparency of the sources used by fact-checkers. Results revealed that transparency is less integrated in non-US fact-checking organisations, except in Germany. They also underlined that source transparency depends on the information environment and the type of fact-checking organisation. In addition, members of the IFCN showed more commitment to transparency.

Transparency in journalism

Transparency is a multifaceted concept defined as revealing the hidden, making the invisible visible and ensuring that information is accessible (Ball, 2009). In journalism, it has been described as “making public the traditionally private factors that influence the production of news” (Allen, 2008: 323) or as “a set of principles that provide normative guidance for journalistic approaches to newsgathering” (Gynnild, 2014: 451). In its most provocative interpretation, transparency has even been called “the new objectivity” (Weinberger, 2009).

The concept of transparency emerged as a response to the controversial idea of objectivity, which poses a philosophical challenge due to the difficulty of selecting facts without values and the problem of “brute facts,” which are devoid of meaning if not linked to individual subjectivity (Muñoz-Torres, 2012). While objectivity has traditionally been central to journalistic identity and professional legitimacy (Hellmueller et al., 2013), transparency has gained prominence for its potential to ensure trust and credibility in the news (Koliska, 2022; Zelizer, 2019). It is also seen as a tool to promote accountability and honesty (Craft and Vos, 2021; Curry and Stroud, 2021; Karlsson, 2010; Phillips, 2010) by requiring journalists to be “open and explicit about their processes, methods, limitations and assumptions” (Vos and Craft, 2017: 1507).

Digital technologies have brought new methods and tools for news reporting, whereas speed has made it a challenge to ensure accuracy while providing space for explanation and correction (Karlsson, 2020; Revers, 2014). Nowadays, transparency covers various aspects of editorial production, including editorial judgement, reliability of facts, accuracy of evidence, disclosure of news sources, correcting mistakes and being honest about errors (e.g. Chadha and Koliska, 2015; Karlsson, 2010, 2011; Mor and Reich, 2018; Plaisance, 2007; Revers, 2014). It also addresses influencing factors such as conflicts of interest, editorial partnerships and funding sources (Ward, 2014). Haapanen (2022) advocates for a comprehensive understanding of transparency, considering the role of producers, the publication process and audience engagement techniques.

Despite widespread advocacy, empirical data on integrating transparency into journalistic practices remains limited (Haapanen, 2022; Karlsson, 2021). Some studies have explored the application of transparency in broader journalistic practices, particularly in the US, where it is recognised as an institutionalised norm. However, not all journalists see transparency as the most critical component of their work. For example, in Germany, where transparency is not part of the national code of ethics, journalists have shown mixed enthusiasm for the principle (Koliska and Chadha, 2018). Nevertheless, some news organisations have adopted transparency-based practices, such as using social media to provide behind-the-scenes insights, presenting journalists’ biographies and disclosing sponsorship (Koliska and Chadha, 2018). In Finland, a study on the use of quotations in editorial texts revealed a gap between the normative assumption of transparency and the empirical reality, suggesting that transparency may become an institutional myth that merely encourages journalists to disclose only acceptable practices (Haapanen, 2022).

In addition to fact-checking, certain journalistic genres are characterised by their openness. In data journalism, for example, transparency is considered a fundamental normative value (Gehrke, 2020; Lewis and Westlund, 2015) and is essential for open journalistic practices (Porlezza and Splendore, 2019). Transparency in data journalism is achieved by making data available to the public, indicating publication dates and updates, providing hyperlinks (Chaparro-Dominguez and Diaz-Campo, 2021), and explaining the methods used, which helps the public understand the process behind data-driven stories (Diakopoulos and Koliska, 2017). Nonetheless, transparency is instead viewed as complementing objectivity insofar as data journalists tend to consider that data enhances the objectivity of facts, making them less aware of the underlying human decision-making behind the collection of empirical data (Anderson, 2018).

Transparency is also central to journalistic practices that rely on open-source tools, often involving collaboration with computer scientists from the open-source community. This community, deeply rooted in a culture of transparency, iteration, and participation, may bring different perspectives to journalism due to its distinct professional culture (Lewis and Usher, 2013). Moving to AI-driven journalism, transparency is primarily associated with accountability, which involves explaining the internal mechanisms of AI systems and their decision-making processes, which are often considered black boxes (e.g. Graziani et al., 2022; Lim and Perrault, 2022; Rai, 2020).

In this area, discussions on transparency focus on the need to disclose all data sources that feed AI systems, the authorship of content that is partially or fully automatically generated (Dörr and Hollbuchner, 2017), and the algorithms at work that can help users identify embedded values or ideologies (Diakopoulos and Koliska, 2017). Algorithmic transparency is critical not only for integrating AI into journalistic practice but also for ensuring accountability. As these systems are not bias-free – given the biases of the people who create them (Annany and Crawford, 2018; Diakopoulos, 2015; Diakopoulos and Koliska, 2017) – transparency is essential for understanding and mitigating these biases. At the same time, excessive disclosure of internal mechanisms may limit professional autonomy and weaken the effectiveness of editorial decisions. Further, transparency is insufficient to guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the outcomes.

Despite its potential benefits, transparency has several drawbacks. It can conflict with other journalistic values, such as protecting sources or minimising harm (Ward, 2014). Transparency can threaten other journalistic norms and control mechanisms by imposing constraints on journalistic actions and raising questions about relationships with sources (Phillips, 2010). Therefore, transparency should be seen as a means to achieve other ethical considerations rather than an end per se (Craft and Vos, 2021). Furthermore, when transparency is used to argue for what is relevant, newsworthy, or true, it is not free from bias – whether of individual journalists or journalism as an institution (Craft and Vos, 2021). Transparency can also serve as a promotional tool to engage audiences (Koliska, 2015) and can sometimes have the opposite effect than expected (Koliska and Chadha, 2016).

Transparency is often linked to the broader social role of journalism and the concept of being accountable for one’s actions. However, conflating these concepts can lead to misunderstandings (Ward, 2014). While transparency is frequently associated with the role of journalism and the idea of accountability, it does not necessarily prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or biased information. Therefore, it requires ongoing critical scrutiny.

Method

The professional practices of Nordic fact-checkers were discussed through fourteen semi-structured interviews between March and April 2022, lasting an average of 63 min. Fact-checkers of the four fact-checking organisation members of the NORDIS hub were invited for face-to-face interviews (six fact-checkers and the newsroom manager working at Faktisk in Norway, one fact-checker working at Källkritikbyrån in Sweden, two fact-checkers and the newsroom manager at TjekDet in Denmark) and a zoom meeting (two fact-checkers and the newsroom manager of FaktaBaari in Finland), as a part of broader research aimed at identifying the technological needs of fact-checkers.

Faktisk was created in 2017, framed by a partnership between six news media organisations in Norway that otherwise compete with each other, including the public broadcaster NRK, the press group Schibsted and the liberal newspaper Dagbladet (Allern, 2019; Larsen, 2019; Steensen et al., 2023). Källkritikbyrån is an independent project launched in 2019, soon after the closing of the daily Metro and its fact-checking service Viralgranskaren. TjekDet was created in 2016 as a part of the weekly magazine Mandag Morgen. The case of FaktaBaari is a bit different, as the organisation has been active in fact-checking and digital information literacy since 2014. They all emerged from the news media sector or journalism, each with distinct operational models. According to the European Commission’s definition of SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), they refer to micro-size (Sweden, Finland) and small (Denmark, Norway) enterprises, as they employ between three and 10 people. Since our panel of interviewees constitutes one-third of the entire staff, we can consider it representative. The interview guide consisted of 29 questions relating to the professional background and expertise of the Nordic fact-checkers, their perception of their professional identity, the processes they follow and their relationship with their audiences. The interviews were conducted in English and fully transcribed. It is important to clarify that the interviews we conducted deliberately excluded consideration of organisational models and sources of funding, as these are not directly related to fact-checking practices. While we acknowledge that these aspects are critical for understanding the broader environment in which fact-checkers operate, our research specifically emphasised aspects related to professional practices to connect with our research questions.

Transcriptions were processed using Taguette, an open-source computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. This collaborative tool helped to annotate, organise, and analyse the content (Rampin and Rampin, 2021). In addition, these four organisations’ websites were consulted to document how they apply the IFCN principles and practically inform their audiences on their politics of openness and transparency. While interviews highlighted the self-reflection of fact-checkers’ attitudes towards their practices and values, webpages served as tangible artefacts, providing material traces that attest to these practices and values as contributing to the construction of trust (Usher, 2018).

Reflecting transparency in practices

This section explores the reflexive discussions on transparency within the realm of fact-checking, emphasising its pivotal role in shaping daily practices, its significance as a fundamental value and its potential for building trust.

Transparency as a practice

The professional skills of our interviewees are grounded in academic backgrounds mostly connected to journalism, communication, and media studies. Other qualifications include library and information science, political science, European studies, folklore studies, philosophy, and ethics. Their training in fact-checking, as part of their journalistic skills, is grounded in their daily practices, internal shared expertise, or participation in international conferences dedicated to fact-checking. That means that their body of tacit knowledge is also expanded by the know-how they gain from their professional experience, which ranges from two to more than 20 years as journalists or fact-checkers. As part of transparency, their details can be found on dedicated pages on their organisation’s website, including their age, picture, and professional email address. FaktaBaari is an exception. The “About us” page shortly presents the members of the organisation and their roles, with a hyperlink returning either to their LinkedIn profile to obtain more details about their education and career or to a personal website.

All interviewees acknowledge that fact-checking is a genre in journalism (even a part of investigative journalism) and point to common patterns, which reflect an organisational model close to a newsroom model: “I think there is a difference, but they overlap. Some traits of a journalist are traits of a fact-checker and vice versa. I think objectivity, for example, research skills and those things, are important in both cases” (JFC3, Norway). However, there is also a difference, mainly related to the time required for fact-checking activities: “Traditional journalism is more oriented either towards breaking news or storytelling, or just more traditional reporting, whereas fact-checking facts is generally more geared towards specific information claims and their verification” (JFC4, Norway), “In reporting, the key is to be fast and accurate, and we don’t care about being fast” (JFC2, Norway). They share several soft skills, such as being curious, analytical, critical, and sceptical. “The key epistemic skills for a fact-checker would be to not be convinced by immediately available evidence”, summed up one fact-checker (JFC4, Norway).

The hallmark of publishing a fact check is to explain the process behind the story, giving readers the opportunity to follow the same path to get the same result. For our interviewees, explanations can be considered a tool for transparency: “We try to be as transparent as possible […] so to be open in a very explicit sense” (JFC6, Norway), “It is described very clearly: the research we have done, all the things that point to why the claim is false or misleading. […] So that people can read it for themselves and maybe repeat the process” (JFC11, Denmark). Although fact-checking processes may vary according to the topic or the format to be checked, they are well-documented in the online publications of the four fact-checking organisations. FaktaBaari provides a “delivery principles” page that explains a process led by digital fact-checking, aiming “to prepare them openly and in sufficient detail so that the reader can form his own opinion on the issues.” On its website, TjekDet explains: “This is how we fact-check (…) Our goal is that readers can reconstruct our fact-checking themselves.” Källkritikbyrån also exposes the method used, as well as the correction of fact-checks. Finally, Faktisk chooses not to expose it on a dedicated page. Yet, the organisation highlights its commitment to “explain the methods we use to select, research, write, edit, publish, and correct our fact-checks.”

The choice of the claim to fact-check might be the least transparent part of the process, as editorial meetings in which assignments are decided are closed to the outside. The decision to fact-check a given claim or viral content on social media also bears other limitations. They can be related to the impossibility to fact-check opinions – “Norway should become a Republic, for example, would be an example of a statement that you cannot fact-check because there is just no fact to find there” (JFC4, Norway) – or to unverifiable sources – “There is stuff coming from basically unverifiable sources, but you can still report what is out there and just explain the steps you have gone through” (JFC4, Norway) –, but also due the time-consuming process of fact-checking. However, the practices of transparency may allow going beyond some limits – “As long as you are fully transparent about what you are doing and the limits of what you are doing, you can fact-check basically everything” (JFC5, Norway) – while most large-scale topics should be avoided – “It could be like: ‘What is true and false with the Holocaust?’ It is too big, and it creates problems” (JFC9, Sweden).

The selection of a topic can also be weighed by the available resources – “We have to choose really roughly about what we do because we have limited resources” (JFC14, Finland) – or by their relationship to Facebook. Indeed, one of the main revenue sources for fact-checkers globally is the inspection of Facebook posts, but the algorithmically curated feed of claims to check is a black box. Fact-checkers have little to no information on how posts are chosen. One respondent suspects it is a learning algorithm as the system seems to get more precise over time: “These are from users of Facebook who want Facebook to sort of flag it. […] A huge algorithm runs it. We don’t know how […] I don’t know if they even know how it works themselves” (JFC10, Denmark).

The practices of transparency are also related to the nature of an information source, for instance, avoiding asking anonymous ones: “The people who are anonymous in our texts are the people who spread things, up until they are famous people or powerful people in some regard. So, no experts are anonymous. We try not to do that” (JFC9, Sweden). However, remaining critical of the sources may also require a part investigative, especially in a scientific context: “We have ended up dealing with claims that are not very easy to fact-check, which are […] not black and white. So, we ended up using scientific experts, but we have also been reading scientific journals during the past year, in medicine” (JFC14, Finland). In the Russian-Ukrainian war context, the trustworthiness of information sources challenges transparency: “The difficulty is to trust the works of colleagues based in Ukraine, insofar as they did not show their sources in a very transparent way […] In these kinds of crisis situations, it is very difficult to get the information you can trust” (JFC14, Finland).

Despite a strong commitment to explaining fact-checking methods, transparency practices are limited by the opacity of editorial decisions, which are related to a traditional newsroom model. Fact-checking is also limited by not only the availability of information sources but also their level of reliability. Another issue lies in the promises of fact-checking as a lever to deal with information disorder: the volume of potential facts to be verified makes it difficult to address them all. The fact-checking organisations presented in this paper have limited human resources, which is also why not all claims can be fact-checked.

Transparency as a professional value

The ethical norms guiding professional fact-checking are grounded in ethical journalism practices and in the IFCN’s code of principles, to which the four Nordic fact-checking organisations examined in this paper adhere. Faktisk acknowledges its commitment to the ethical code of the Norwegian Press Association and its editors. In accordance with the IFCN’s code of principles, it also published information about its funding since its creation in 2017. TjekDet details the ethical guidelines followed by its newsroom, emphasising that public debate, mainly on social media, is the core of journalists’ work. The focus is also on the employees’ independence, stating that they “should never engage in activities that could cast doubt on their impartiality and credibility.” The status, budget, and account of the organisation are also clearly detailed. Källkritikbyrån provides links on its “About Us” webpage, referring to its funding sources, partnerships, and ethical commitments. In Finland, FaktaBaari was among the first signatories of the IFCN’s code of principles. On its website, it provides information on its funding and the importance of transparency implemented in practice in its projects and editorial work. While each organisation’s website is structured differently, the same types of information are available, ranging from summaries to detailed information.

For fact-checkers employed in these four organisations, whose professional identity is strongly connected to journalism, the ethical principles of journalism and fact-checking overlap. “The IFCN rules and the ethical press rules of Denmark, more or less, are the same” (JFC10, Denmark). However, transparency is viewed as the additional layer that distinguishes ethics in “traditional” journalism from ethics in fact-checking: “Especially the transparency of methods using open-source, being open about how you […] do your work to make all the pieces of what you do in journalism transparent. […] This is somewhere where we could really make journalism, like legacy journalism, more trustworthy, in being open about sources” (JFC5, Norway). The ethical requirement of transparency is bound to the concept of objectivity, which seems to remain a core journalistic value: “I think you have to be, as journalists should be, objective, that you do not have any feelings or opinions going into the checking” (JFC8, Norway).

The ethical practice of transparency also implies non-partisanship and being free from any kind of bias, for instance, regarding “the usual suspects” in disinformation. Fairness, accuracy, and credibility are three other transparency components acknowledged by our panel of interviewees: “I guess, try to be as fair and accurate as possible. I think, for fact-checkers especially, it is even more important than for journalists, in general, to be fully transparent. It should be possible to follow each fact-check as a recipe […] I think that is important for credibility” (JFC5, Norway). However, when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of transparency, fact-checkers are aware of its limitations: “I think that journalists, in general, seem to think that fact-checking is like an insult, that they already do this. But this is just a format […]. When the journalists are bad, it affects the trust for fact-checkers around the world. And if fact-checkers […] do something weird to the public, then that can affect the trust for journalism” (JFC8, Sweden).

Furthermore, the commitment of fact-checkers to journalism as a public service is guided by the transparent explanations provided in their fact-check, assuming that readers must be able to follow the methods to achieve the same results. Our interviewees are aware that readers will not necessarily reproduce their method and process. However, they consider that it participates in an educational approach connected to digital media literacy. All the organisations examined in this paper are committed to this field through conferences, educational, or dedicated programs.

Transparency and the question of trust

Transparency can be viewed as a means to build a trusting relationship with audiences. Nevertheless, the analysis of our interviews with Nordic fact-checkers has nuanced what may appear to be an idealistic vision of fact-checking. First, fact-checkers do not think they are popular due to the nature of their work: “It is not a comfortable part of journalism because every day you confront people in power, pointing out their mistakes, and that is not a popular kind of journalism […]. Often, fact-checkers are accused of being judges, the ministry of truth, or whatever. No, it is not that at all. It is just another way of writing constructive stories that focuses on facts, source criticism, critical thinking, media literacy” (JFC5, Norway). As a consequence, politicians might be more cautious in their public discourses: “I think it has had an impact on the public debate for people in power. They have to tell the truth now, or to a greater extent” (JFC14, Denmark). Another aspect to consider is the negative reactions that fact-checkers may receive as a result of disagreements with their fact-checks, which may be interpreted as a challenge to the facts or to the fact-checker’s authority.

Our interviewees did not manifest any interest in audience engagement measurements. Therefore, they have difficulties evaluating their impact other than their number of followers on social media or, like in Denmark, through the news outlets talking about their fact-checks: “We do not have that much set up for that. I think the only thing we really look for is, of course, we see if people retweet our articles or share them on Facebook, or if the news outlets are talking about our work, stuff like that” (JFC11, Denmark). Our interviewees also agreed on their limited influence – “(We) could contribute to some sort of behavioural change or critical thinking. […] We know that individual fact-checks have limited impact as such” (JFC13, Finland) –, except in the political world: “Politicians are more used to being fact-checked, so they are more accurate, and they have used the time to find out what they can say and what they cannot say because it was harder for us to find mistakes” (JFC2, Norway).

The promises of building trust with audiences are challenged by the negative perception that fact-checkers might have. However, “fact-checkers are still much closer to, let’s say, ordinary people” (JFC1, Finland). In addition, fact-checkers would make a difference to readers by not only reporting a story but also providing the context of the story, which is sometimes lacking in journalism (JFC7, Norway).

Interactions with readers occur practically in two ways: receiving tips via email or social media and answering questions by email. What makes the buzz on social media is also scrutinised to detect the newsworthiness of fact-checking. The main limitations of these interactions are, firstly, the time needed to reply - “I don’t have the time to reply to everyone, but I try to do it as much as I can” (JFC8, Sweden) - and a certain lack of respect for the professionals: “ We don’t answer the emails that just bother us” (JFC2, Norway). Such negative reactions could also be linked to disagreements: “You can try to explain the war in Ukraine, but some won’t believe it” (JFC12, Denmark).

The devices for interacting with readers can be understood as instruments of transparency. On their respective websites, the four Nordic organisations examined in this paper invite their readers to send tips to fact-check through a “Tip us” section. Faktisk also invites its audiences to contact the newsroom for “criticism, praise and wrongful publication.” FaktaBaari encourages people to check a claim by themselves by using their guides or, if not, to help the fact-checkers “with a link and any additional information.” TjekDet provides the most extended explanation, underlining that “We want the truth and the nuances back in the public debate.” Readers are advised, “The starting point is that your proposal for a fact-check must be based on a concrete claim that you have seen or heard.” It is also the only fact-checking organisation that provides a direct number to join the newsroom.

Discussion

Transparency practices are fundamental to Nordic fact-checking organisations, shaping their operational ethos and professional commitments. This discussion explores the implementation of transparency, its integration as an ethical standard, and the challenges faced in using transparency to foster trust.

Implementing transparency in daily practice

Regarding the first research question (RQ1) on how Nordic fact-checking organisations implement transparency in their daily practice, transparency is fundamental to their operational ethos. The four organisations studied in this research embed transparency in their methodologies, as evidenced by explicit explanations of fact-checking processes in published reports. They all prioritise openness by sharing detailed research methods and sources, enabling readers to replicate fact-checking findings. However, there are several limitations to transparency. First, editorial decisions remain opaque, reflecting traditional newsroom practices that can limit transparency. Therefore, it may not fully convey the complexity of the decision-making process, potentially undermining understanding and appreciation of these critical decisions (Curry and Stroud, 2021). Second, the sheer volume of information to be fact-checked exceeds organisational capacity, leading to selective fact-checking, especially in the smallest structures as in Sweden and Finland. Limited human resources within fact-checking teams and reliance on social media platforms for content curation further complicate transparency efforts.

Despite practical commitments to transparency, its full realisation is also hampered by the opacity of the technological tools available to fact-checkers. For example, Facebook’s selection algorithm, which determines the content flagged for review, is part of Meta’s third-party fact-checking program that is made available for independent fact-checking organisations. This algorithm operates without full disclosure of its criteria and processes, making it difficult for fact-checkers to fully understand why certain content is prioritised or how decisions are made. As a result, this lack of transparency in how the algorithm works can reduce the effectiveness of fact-checking efforts and reduce the overall accountability of the process. This relates to broader debates and research on making technology more responsible through ethical design reflecting journalistic norms and values (Gutierrez Lopez et al., 2023).

Integrating transparency as an ethical standard

In response to the second research question on how fact-checkers integrate transparency as an ethical standard (RQ2), it is clear that transparency plays a crucial role in enhancing accountability within Nordic fact-checking organisations. Their adherence to national codes of ethics and the principles of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) reflects a commitment to professional identity and self-regulation in the Nordic countries. It also recognises a dual identity as journalists and fact-checkers.

While transparency is primarily a tool for accountability rather than a substitute for objectivity, fact-checkers recognise the complex nature of facts. The notion of a fact is inherently linked to objectivity, suggesting that a “correct” statement is simply a fact, when reality may be far more nuanced (Haider and Sundin, 2022). Objectivity in this context refers to the presentation of information without bias or personal opinion, emphasising distance and impartiality. Transparency, on the other hand, focuses on openness and accountability, ensuring that readers understand the fact-checking process and can independently verify the results. The interplay between the perceived objectivity of facts and the need for transparency highlights the ethical challenges that fact-checkers face in maintaining credibility and trust, bridging journalistic and fact-checking norms.

Transparency extends to organisational practices, including public disclosure of funding sources and partnerships, underlining their commitment to accountability and ethical journalism. Each organisation has a unique approach, showing variations in transparency within their fact-checking methodologies and structures. Fact-checkers also face a few challenges related to journalistic control, as they do not fear that increased transparency will undermine their authority or compromise their work. This indicates confidence in their methods and the robustness of their fact-checking practices despite the limits of transparency.

Perspectives on the challenges of using transparency to build trust

Although fact-checkers see transparency as a critical tool for building trust with their audiences, they often face criticism and negative perceptions, including accusations of being judgmental or the “ministry of truth” as reported by a Norwegian participant. Fact-checkers show limited interest in traditional audience engagement metrics, focusing instead on social media shares and mentions by news outlets to measure impact. Evaluating their impact beyond social media metrics proves challenging for fact-checkers, who struggle to measure changes in behaviour or critical thinking as a result of their work. Nevertheless, they acknowledge a potential impact in the political sphere, where increased accountability of politicians has been observed as a result of fact-checking efforts, especially in Denmark. Wider societal impacts remain difficult to quantify. Further, when fact-checkers share their expertise in fact-checks and broader media literacy efforts, transparency acts as a beacon to empower audiences by providing them with guidance and methods to be critical and equipped to distinguish facts from so-called facts.

Despite the widespread recognition of transparency as a key principle in fact-checking practices, our findings suggest that it is not sufficient to build or maintain trust (RQ3). While research participants acknowledged the importance of transparency, transparency alone does not guarantee that audiences will trust the results. This challenges the generally accepted level of trust in news in the Nordic countries, which benefits from a relatively high and stable level of general trust compared to other European countries (Newman et al., 2022). Does this mean that information disorder is significant enough to undermine a long tradition of trust? This question deserves further investigation to compensate for the lack of comprehensive comparative data to document the phenomenon (Horowitz et al., 2022).

Conclusion

Approaching transparency practices from the three complementary perspectives of practice, norms and impact, from which the question of trust derives, has allowed us to highlight that transparency is much more than an ideological view or a discursive stance when examining professional fact-checking practices. It is a variable that is considered throughout the fact-checking process of our panel of Nordic fact-checkers, who adhere to transparency as an ethical norm and a professional duty.

Although fact-checking in the Nordic countries reflects a culture of openness, it should not be assumed that these are unique transparency practices. It is fair to say that the culture of transparency transcends public discourses in our contemporary societies as a substitute for truth, ethics and fairness (Docherty, 2014). Furthermore, all of the organisations studied are, or have been, part of an international movement in which all fact-checkers are assumed to respect and practise high standards of transparency. Despite these ontological limitations, this paper offers valuable insights into how fact-checkers perceive transparency as a fundamental commitment in both fact-checking and journalism.

Further research should explore the organisational and financial aspects briefly mentioned in this study. This would provide a fuller picture of the context in which fact-checking organisations operate and shed light on the challenges and opportunities they face in ensuring transparency and accountability.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by EU CEF Grant No. 2394203.

ORCID iD

Laurence Dierickx

Author biographies

Dr Laurence Dierickx has a professional background in data and computational journalism. She holds a master’s degree in information and communication science and technology and a PhD in Information and communication science. Her doctoral thesis explored the conditions of the use of news automation within newsrooms through socio-technical lenses and ethnographic methods from science and technology studies. She is a postdoc researcher at the department of Information science and media studies at the University of Bergen (Norway), where she focuses on professional practices and processes in fact-checking, including ethics, uses and the relationships between fact-checkers and technological tools. She is also a data journalism teacher at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium), and a member of the ReSIC research centre. She has been admitted as a research fellow at the Digital Democracy Center from the University of South Denmark.

Pr. Carl-Gustav Lindén is a Professor of Data Journalism at the University of Bergen, Norway. The main part of his research is positioned within two central media and journalism studies areas. The first is media technology focusing on data journalism and news automation. The second area is sustainable business models for journalism and media. His scientific approach is empirical research with interdisciplinary and international collaboration with computer scientists, data linguists, designers as well as business researchers. Most of his research provides results from real-life experiences and involves the participation of journalists and the media industry. He has published seven books and dozens of scientific articles in journals such as Digital Journalism Studies, Jasist and Nordicom Review.

References

Allen

(2008) The trouble with transparency: the challenge of doing journalism ethics in a surveillance society. Journalism Studies 9(3): 323–340.

Allern

(2019) Journalistikk som faktasjekking. In: Bjerke

Kjos Fonn

Röe Mathisen

(eds) Journalistikk, Profesjon Og Endring, Stamsund: Orkana Akademisk.

Amazeen

(2015) Revisiting the epistemology of fact-checking. Critical Review 27(1): 1–22.

Ananny

Crawford

(2018) Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society 20(3): 973–989.

Anderson

(2018) Apostles of Certainty: Data Journalism and the Politics of Doubt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ball

(2009) What is transparency? Public Integrity 11(4): 293–308.

Brandtzaeg

Følstad

(2017) Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services. Communications of the ACM 60(9): 65–71.

Chadha

Koliska

(2015) Newsrooms and transparency in the digital age. Journalism Practice 9(2): 215–229.

Chaparro-Domínguez

M-Á

Díaz-Campo

(2021) Data journalism and ethics: best practices in the winning projects (DJA, OJA and sigma awards). Journalism Practice 17: 1321–1339.

10.

Craft

Vos

(2021) The ethics of transparency. The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics. London: Routledge, 175–183.

11.

Curry

Stroud

(2021) The effects of journalistic transparency on credibility assessments and engagement intentions. Journalism 22(4): 901–918.

12.

Diakopoulos

(2015) Algorithmic accountability: journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism 3(3): 398–415.

13.

Diakopoulos

Koliska

(2017) Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism 5(7): 809–828.

14.

Dierickx

Lindén

(2023) Journalism and fact-checking technologies: understanding user needs. communication+ 1(1): 10.

15.

Docherty

(2014) Confessions: The Philosophy of Transparency. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

16.

Dörr

Hollnbuchner

(2017) Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism 5(4): 404–419.

17.

Ekström

Westlund

(2019) Epistemology and Journalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Gehrke

(2020) Transparency as a Key Element of Data Journalism. Boston, USA: Computation+ Journalism Symposium. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3l3jhy5.

19.

Graves

(2017) Anatomy of a fact check: objective practice and the contested epistemology of fact checking: anatomy of a fact check. Communication Culture and Critique 10(3): 518–537.

20.

Graves

(2018) Boundaries Not Drawn: mapping the institutional roots of the global fact-checking movement. Journalism Studies 19(5): 613–631.

21.

Graves

Cherubini

(2016) The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford: University of Oxford. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/rise-fact-checking-sites-europe.

22.

Graziani

Dutkiewicz

Calvaresi

, et al. (2022) A global taxonomy of interpretable AI: unifying the terminology for the technical and social sciences. Artificial Intelligence Review 56(6): 3473–3504.

23.

Grönvall

(2023) Fact-checkers and the news media: a Nordic perspective on propaganda. Nordic Journal of Media Studies 5(1): 134–153.

24.

Gutierrez Lopez

Porlezza

Cooper

, et al. (2023) A question of design: strategies for embedding AI-driven tools into journalistic work routines. Digital Journalism 11(3): 484–503.

25.

Gynnild

(2014) Surveillance videos and visual transparency in journalism. Journalism Studies 15(4): 449–463.

26.

Haapanen

(2022) Problematising the restoration of trust through transparency: focusing on quoting. Journalism 23(4): 875–891.

27.

Haider

Sundin

(2022) Paradoxes of Media and Information Literacy: The Crisis of Information. Abindon, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

28.

Hellmueller

Vos

Poepsel

(2013) Shifting journalistic capital? Transparency and objectivity in the twenty-first century. Journalism Studies 14(3): 287–304.

29.

Horowitz

Cushion

Dragomir

, et al. (2022) A framework for assessing the role of public service media organizations in countering disinformation. Digital Journalism 10(5): 843–865.

30.

Humprecht

(2019) Where “fake news” flourishes: a comparison across four Western democracies. Information, Communication & Society 22(13): 1973–1988.

31.

Humprecht

(2020) How do they debunk “fake news”? A cross-national comparison of transparency in fact checks. Digital journalism 8(3): 310–327.

32.

Karlsson

(2010) Rituals of transparency: evaluating online news outlets’ uses of transparency rituals in the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Journalism Studies 11(4): 535–545.

33.

Karlsson

(2011) The immediacy of online news, the visibility of journalistic processes and a restructuring of journalistic authority. Journalism 12(3): 279–295.

34.

Karlsson

(2020) Dispersing the opacity of transparency in journalism on the appeal of different forms of transparency to the general public. Journalism Studies 21(13): 1795–1814.

35.

Karlsson

(2021) Transparency and Journalism: A Critical Appraisal of a Disruptive Norm. England: Routledge.

36.

Koliska

(2015) Transparency and Trust in Journalism: An Examination of Values, Practices and Effects. College Park: Digital Repository at the University of Maryland.

37.

Koliska

(2022) Trust and journalistic transparency online. Journalism Studies 23(12): 1488–1509.

38.

Koliska

Chadha

(2016) Digitally outsourced: the limitations of computer-mediated transparency. Journal of Media Ethics 31(1): 51–62.

39.

Koliska

Chadha

(2018) Transparency in German Newsrooms: diffusion of a new journalistic norm? Journalism Studies 19(16): 2400–2416.

40.

Larsen

(2019) The limits of truth-a case study of faktisk and crosscheck. In: Orban

Strand Larsen

(eds) Discussing Borders, Escaping Traps: Transdisciplinary and Transspatial Approaches. Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 47–65.

41.

Larssen

(2020) But verifying facts is what we do!”: fact-checking and journalistic professional autonomy. In: Giusti

Piras

(eds) Democracy and Fake News. 1st edition. London: Routledge, 199.

42.

Lewis

Usher

(2013) Open source and journalism: toward new frameworks for imagining news innovation. Media, Culture & Society 35(5): 602–619.

43.

Lewis

Westlund

(2015) Big data and journalism: epistemology, expertise, economics, and ethics. Digital Journalism 3(3): 447–466.

44.

Lim

Perrault

(2022) Explanation preferences in XAI fact-checkers. In: Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. EUSSET, Coimbra, Portugal, 27 June–July 1 2022.

45.

Mena

(2019) Principles and boundaries of fact-checking: journalists’ perceptions. Journalism Practice 13(6): 657–672.

46.

Micallef

Armacost

Memon

, et al. (2022) True or false: studying the work practices of professional fact-checkers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW1): 1–44.

47.

Mor

Reich

(2018) From “trust me” to “show me” journalism: can DocumentCloud help to restore the deteriorating credibility of news? Journalism Practice 12(9): 1091–1108.

48.

Muñoz-Torres

(2012) Truth and objectivity in journalism: anatomy of an endless misunderstanding. Journalism Studies 13(4): 566–582.

49.

Newman

Fletcher

Robertson

, et al. (2022) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

50.

Oleinik

Paniotto

(2023) War propaganda unfolded: comparative effectiveness of propaganda and counterpropaganda in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. International Journal of Communication 17: 26.

51.

Phillips

(2010) Transparency and the new ethics of journalism. Journalism Practice 4(3): 373–382.

52.

Picha Edwardsson

Al-Saqaf

Nygren

(2023) Verification of digital sources in Swedish newsrooms—a technical issue or a question of newsroom culture? Journalism Practice 17(8): 1678–1695.

53.

Plaisance

(2007) Transparency: an assessment of the Kantian roots of a key element in media ethics practice. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22(2–3): 187–207.

54.

Porlezza

Splendore

(2019) From open journalism to closed data: data journalism in Italy. Digital Journalism 7(9): 1230–1252.

55.

Rai

(2020) Explainable AI: from black box to glass box. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 48(1): 137–141.

56.

Rampin

(2021) Taguette: open-source qualitative data analysis. Journal of Open Source Software 6(68): 3522.

57.

Revers

(2014) The twitterization of news making: transparency and journalistic professionalism. Journal of Communication 64(5): 806–826.

58.

Robinson

(2020) Trust, transparency, and openness: how inclusion of cultural values shapes Nordic national public policy strategies for artificial intelligence (AI). Technology in Society 63: 101421.

59.

Samuelsen

Kalsnes

Steensen

(2023) The relevance of technology to information verification: insights from Norwegian journalism during a national election. Journalism Practice 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2280676.

60.

Sanders

(2004) Ethics and Journalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

61.

Seaton

Sippitt

Worthy

(2020) Fact checking and information in the age of COVID. The Political Quarterly 91(3): 578–584.

62.

Singer

(2021) Border patrol: the rise and role of fact-checkers and their challenge to journalists’ normative boundaries. Journalism 22(8): 1929–1946.

63.

Steensen

Kalsnes

Westlund

(2023) The limits of live fact-checking: epistemological consequences of introducing a breaking news logic to political fact-checking. New Media & Society 146144482311514. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231151436.

64.

Ternullo

(2022) I’m not sure what to believe”: media distrust and opinion formation during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Political Science Review 116(3): 1096–1109. DOI: 10.1017/s000305542200003x.

65.

Usher

(2018) Re-thinking trust in the news: a material approach through “objects of journalism”. Journalism Studies 19(4): 564–578.

66.

Vesa

(2015) Nordic openness in practice. Nordicom Review 36(2): 129–142.

67.

Vos

Craft

(2017) The discursive construction of journalistic transparency. Journalism Studies 18(12): 1505–1522.

68.

Ward

(2005) Philosophical foundations for global journalism ethics. Journal of mass media ethics 20(1): 3–21.

69.

Ward

(2014) The magical concept of transparency. In: Zion

Craig

(eds) Ethics for Digital Journalists. England: Routledge, 57–70.

70.

Wardle

Derakhshan

(2017) Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Vol. 27, pp. 1-107). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

71.

Weinberger

(2009) Transparency: The New Objectivity. Camden: KMWorld. https://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Column/David-Weinberger/Transparency-the-new-objectivity-55785.aspx.

72.

Zelizer

(2019) Why journalism is about more than digital technology. Digital Journalism 7(3): 343–350.

Transparency and fact-checking in open societies

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Framing the concept of transparency

Transparency in fact-checking

Transparency in journalism

Method

Reflecting transparency in practices

Transparency as a practice

Transparency as a professional value

Transparency and the question of trust

Discussion

Implementing transparency in daily practice

Integrating transparency as an ethical standard

Perspectives on the challenges of using transparency to build trust

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References