Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper examines the verification practices and strategies of external fact-checking units within two leading European public service media (PSM) organizations: BBC Reality Check (UK) and ARD’s Faktenfinder (Germany). We analyze their practices through a content analysis of all 2022 verification articles (n = 198) and qualitative interviews with fact-checkers (n = 4). As major public broadcasters, both institutions are widely regarded for providing universal, high-quality information. Building on calls to expand the role of PSM in addressing informational disorder, we contribute to fact-checking research by focusing on verification within PSM—an underexplored area. Because truth assessment can challenge conventional notions of impartiality, fact-checking in PSM provides a particularly revealing case. We examine how these units navigate information disorder while upholding core values, especially due impartiality. Whereas the BBC centralizes verification within a single department, ARD adopts a decentralized model reflecting Germany’s federal broadcasting structure. In both cases, strict impartiality standards and persistent attacks by right-wing actors foster cautious formulations of truth assessments. Both units prioritize claims by public figures over online rumors and avoid binary truth labels, instead offering nuanced analyses that emphasize transparency and media literacy. Their work closely follows news cycles and socially salient issues, with topic selection shaped by the absence of partnerships with major technology platforms.

Keywords

public service media (PSM)fact-checking disinformation information-disorder comparative studies

Introduction

Public service media (PSM) are widely recognized as a crucial counterweight to mis- and disinformation, enhancing public knowledge (Aalberg and Cushion, 2016) and citizens’ resilience to online falsehoods and misleading political statements (Humprecht et al., 2020). Fact-checking encompasses NGOs, civil society organizations, academic institutions, independent media, and established newsrooms (Graves, 2018), however fact-checking units within PSM—operating under strict impartiality standards—have received comparatively little scholarly attention (Cushion and Kyriakidou, 2025). Fact-checking verdicts challenge traditional notions of objectivity and impartiality in journalism (Cazzamatta, 2025b; 2025c). Research on PSM fact-checking units remains scarce, largely limited to single-country studies—most often the UK, a model of strong public service media (Morani et al., 2024)—and primarily focused on electoral contexts (Birks, 2019; Soo et al., 2023). This neglect partly reflects the limited presence of PSM beyond Western Europe, where editorial independence and institutional oversight are generally safeguarded, particularly in Central and Northern Europe (Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Sehl, 2024b), despite sustained attacks on their legitimacy by right-wing political actors (Holtz-Bacha, 2021).

This paper addresses this gap by examining fact-checking practices and strategies to counter mis- and disinformation in two public service media (PSM) organizations: BBC Reality Check (now BBC Verify) in the UK and ARD-hub in Germany. These cases were selected due to their similarly robust and well-established PSM systems. Despite being well resourced and frequently cited as global benchmarks, little is known about the specific practices, strategies, and constraints shaping their verification work. We adopt a multimethod approach, combining a quantitative content analysis of all verification articles published in 2022 (n = 198) with four expert interviews with practitioners from both organizations. Notably, unlike international news agencies, public service broadcasters have not partnered with Meta. Meta’s withdrawal from fact-checking initiatives in the United States and Google’s termination of its Claim Review program signal a broader rollback of platform-based support for fact-checking. Against this backdrop, PSM may be comparatively less vulnerable, underscoring the need to examine their fact-checking approaches more closely.

We first examine how the BBC and ARD implement fact-checking practices to address disinformation, focusing on their dedicated desks—BBC Reality Check and ARD/Faktenfinder, the latter affiliated with Tagesschau. We observe how these outlets select and scrutinize claims, assess checkability, identify targets and topics, and deploy correction strategies to counter online falsehoods and evasive political statements.

Theoretical background

The role of public service media (PSM) in addressing disinformation

In Western Europe, PSM are regarded as a policy intervention against market-driven drawbacks such as media concentration, declining diversity and content quality, and unequal access to information. Rooted in a mission of universal access to high-quality, impartial content, they counterbalance commercial media capture by political and economic elites (Horowitz et al., 2022). Robust PSM systems are linked to greater resilience to disinformation (Humprecht et al., 2020). Public service broadcasters (PSBs) provide more hard news, enhancing citizens’ knowledge of political and social affairs (Aalberg and Cushion, 2016), which reduces susceptibility to confirmation bias and naïve realism—the assumption that one’s perceptions reflect objective reality.

Research shows that the source of fact-checking strongly influences its effectiveness (Van Erkel et al., 2024). Given the credibility and institutional trust of public service media (PSM), their fact-checks are well positioned to correct misperceptions. Despite challenges—sustaining relevance in a fragmented digital environment, adapting formats for younger audiences, and enduring attacks from right-wing populists (Holtz-Bacha, 2021)—PSM remain trusted sources in many European states (Morani et al., 2024; Sehl, 2020). PSM are thus widely recognized as integral to combating disinformation, offering “a comprehensive, trustworthy chain of content production that is accessible for all, that can be trusted, and that unifies rather than segments citizens” (Horowitz and Lowe, 2020: 179).

In the context of global media concentration, fragmented digital audiences, platformization, distrust in media and institutions, and viral falsehoods, scholars advocate a broader role for PSM beyond providing reliable, diversified, and balanced news (Horowitz et al., 2022; Horowitz and Lowe, 2020; Sehl, 2020). Sehl (2024b) argues that PSM should monitor social media, critically assess third-party content, and verify it. To counter information disorder, they should also promote media literacy and consider alternative platforms. Despite normative calls to expand PSM’s role in disrupted public spheres, few studies have empirically examined these developments. PSM differ widely in institutional frameworks, audience reach, and funding (Council of Europe, 2022; Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Horowitz and Lowe, 2020). To analyze PSM responses to disinformation, we examine two cases where they have historically dominated national media landscapes—Germany and the UK—owing to higher editorial accountability and audience reach (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2021).

While public service media (PSM) are central to Western European media systems, they differ markedly across countries. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s illiberal leadership has placed PSM under strong government control, contributing to de-democratization (Holtz-Bacha, 2021). Rather than countering falsehoods from bad actors and right-wing populists, Hungarian PSM have disseminated pro-government disinformation and anti-EU narratives, particularly on the war in Ukraine (Urbán et al., 2023). Fulfilling PSM’s democratic role requires editorial independence, institutional autonomy, mechanisms to limit political parallelism, and resilience to political attacks (Sehl, 2024b). Adequate funding is also vital to support fact-checking units capable of monitoring social media discourse and developing forensic tools (see case selection below).

Fact-checking as a systemic response to a dysfunctional hybrid media system

From a social systems perspective (Blöbaum, 2004; Luhmann, 2009), journalism developed into an autonomous functional system within modern society, with distinct institutional structures, professional roles, and content formats. Emerging in the 17th century alongside broader societal differentiation, its primary function has been to process and disseminate timely, socially relevant information. As communication volume and complexity increased, journalism adapted through internal differentiation—for example, by creating specialized desks in politics, or economy (Blöbaum, 2004). The same process applies to external fact-checking desks, which verify third-party content. Unlike traditional internal fact-checking before publication, external fact-checking evaluates content already public from political actors, social media users, and others (Graves, 2022).

Shifts driven by digitalization have raised concerns about the rationality of public debate, prompting diagnoses of an era of “information disorder” (Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017). This paradigm distinguishes misinformation (false information shared without intent to harm), disinformation (false information shared with harmful intent), and malinformation (accurate information used to cause harm). In response to “information disorder,” fact-checking organizations have proliferated globally as a journalistic reaction to disinformation (Amazeen, 2019; Graves, 2016). Like other social systems, journalism adapts to its environment, fostering innovation through structural flexibility (Blöbaum, 2004). Amid fragmentation, polarization, misinformation, and strategic manipulation by political actors (Bennett and Livingston, 2018) fact-checking organizations grew from 176 in 2016 to 443 in 2025 (Ryan, 2025). Chadwick (2017) describes modern external fact-checking as an adaptive response, in systems theory terms, to the accelerated pace, intense competition, and proliferation of information channels, positioning news organizations as both rapid responders and trusted correctors of official statements. Scholars see fact-checking as pivotal for restoring public trust and improving public discourse (Koliska and Roberts, 2024; Mahl et al., 2024; Suomalainen et al., 2025), with many contributing to media literacy through workshops, webinars, and resources that empower citizens to assess and verify information independently (Graves and Mantzarlis, 2020).

Epistemology of fact-checking and public service media

Impartiality is a core principle of public service media (PSM) such as the BBC and its counterparts like ARD (Cushion and Kyriakidou, 2025; Sehl, 2024b). Concepts such as impartiality, balance, and objectivity aim to mitigate bias and legitimize professional news production grounded in fairness. However, these concepts vary across national contexts (Hanitzsch et al., 2011) and their operationalization faces widespread criticism (Maras, 2013). Cushion and Kyriakidou (2025) note these terms are often used interchangeably despite representing distinct journalistic ideals. Impartiality requires journalists to refrain from taking sides while presenting conflicting views equally. Objectivity demands reporters exclude subjectivity and presumes an underlying ‘truth’ to represent. Balance refers to equal coverage of opposing perspectives, which has led to the criticized ‘he said/she said’ style (Cunningham, 2003) that undermines journalism’s watchdog role by leaving problematic information unchecked (Hallin, 1989). In the era of post-truth politics and right-wing populism, ‘false balance’—providing equal coverage without assessing credibility—poses a significant challenge, as politicians differ substantially in truthfulness (Birks, 2019; Cushion and Kyriakidou, 2025).

The fact-checking movement emerged in the early 2000s in the United States in response to dissatisfaction with traditional norms of objectivity and impartiality. Glenn Kessler, founder of The Washington Post Fact Checker, noted: “[w]hile the journalist has the duty to quote all sides accurately, he is not required to lend equal credibility to all competing voices” (Dobbs, 2012: 3). During the Brexit debate, UK media often misrepresented expert opinion by giving equal airtime to opposing views—even when one side had overwhelming support—an instance of ‘both-sideism’ that created superficial balance while obscuring factual asymmetry (Cushion and Kyriakidou, 2025).

Public service media (PSM), which place impartiality at their core, face challenges in fact-checking political claims. Such scrutiny often triggers bias accusations, as when Alice Weidel of the far-right AfD walked out of a televised ZDF debate in Germany (Holtz-Bacha, 2021). The literature provides insights into PSM fact-checking. Quantitatively, independent initiatives publish more checks monthly than fact-checking units within larger news organizations producing broader journalism (Graves and Mantzarlis, 2020). Moreover, whereas most independent initiatives employ truth scales, PSM typically avoid binary judgments, favoring narrative assessments to mitigate bias accusations. For instance, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s ABC Fact Check deliberately refrains from labeling claims true or false to preserve impartiality (Graves, 2018).

Similar to PSM, fact-checkers define their work as a public service (Koliska and Roberts, 2024). Some analyses highlight epistemological challenges, including the impossibility of attaining objective truth (Suomalainen et al., 2025; Vinhas and Bastos, 2022). Other studies argue that fact-checkers share a common epistemology that fosters trust in empirically verifiable facts (Koliska and Roberts, 2024). Still, other research differentiates among distinct fact-checking cultures, based on organizational origins, issue-selection strategies, and verification practices (Mahl et al., 2024). For instance, unlike global news agencies that primarily target global online rumors (Cazzamatta, 2025a), public service media (PSM) more often focus on statements by public figures (Cazzamatta, 2025d), making them particularly useful for analyzing claim types. A longstanding debate concerns the definition of a checkable claim. Early studies—before the “debunk turn” (Graves et al., 2024)—showed fact-checkers consistently verified fact-based claims rather than opinions, despite borderline cases involving economic paradigms and expert evaluations (Graves, 2016). Uscinski and Butler (2015, 2013) criticized claim selection, arguing fact-checkers verified unverifiable statements about definitional questions, predictions, or causality, often conflating correlation with causation. Leading scholars have refuted this critique (Amazeen, 2015; Graves, 2017), noting it was based on early fact-checking phases with sporadic verifications. Since then, uncheckable claims—such as opinions, predictions, causality, and philosophical questions—have been explicitly recognized as uncheckable and transparently addressed in fact-checking methodologies (Cazzamatta, 2025e). Moreover, fact-checking’s social relevance lies in enabling informed decision-making and reasonable engagement with evidence, rather than strict epistemological definitions of “fact” (Birks, 2019; Graves, 2016). In light of these developments and PSM remits, we ask:

RQ: How do fact-checking strategies and verification practices of the BBC and ARD vary, particularly with regard to targets, scrutinized actors, claim checkability, topics, selection criteria, and correction strategies in addressing problematic information?

Research design and methods

Case studies: Countries and organizations selection

To assess public service media’s (PSM) role in addressing disinformation—especially via fact-checking—we selected the UK and Germany for their comparatively higher PSM reach (39% and 42%, respectively; European Audiovisual Observatory, 2019) and stronger independence and pluralism.

BBC and BBC verify

The BBC is one of the most far-reaching and established public broadcasters globally, widely regarded as a benchmark for public service media (Horowitz and Lowe, 2020; Sehl, 2024b). Founded in 1922 as the British Broadcasting Company with the mission to “inform, educate, and entertain” (OSCE, 2022), it operates under an autonomous, politically independent structure. Despite pressure from business elites linked to private media, political attacks from right-wing figures such as former UKIP leader Nigel Farage targeting its license fee model and alleging bias (Holtz-Bacha, 2021), and declining media trust (Strömbäck et al., 2020), the BBC remains a crucial actor in the UK media landscape. Although traditional news use has declined, public service media such as the BBC remain among the country’s most trusted sources (Newman et al., 2023). BBC Verify, which evolved from BBC Reality Check, launched during the 2010 general election (Edgington, 2025), positions the BBC as an early pioneer of external fact-checking. According to Ofcom, BBC Verify is the leading fact-checking platform among UK adults, with 21% of those aged 16+ reporting usage (Edgington, 2025).

BBC Reality Check was revived before the 2015 general election and the 2016 Brexit referendum, and later became an established part of BBC News under James Harding’s leadership. In April 2023, it was rebranded as BBC Verify, a unit of around 60 professionals—including journalists, editors, and producers—specializing in fact-checking, open-source intelligence (OSINT), data journalism, user-generated content (UGC), and eyewitness verification. Verify integrates the former BBC Trending team and the BBC World Service’s disinformation investigation unit. Although not all outputs are branded “BBC Verify,” the unit functions as a centralized hub providing expertise across the BBC. Compared to Reality Check’s earlier focus on political claim verification, BBC Verify has a broader remit encompassing forensic and data-driven journalism. It consolidates expertise previously dispersed across the World Service, BBC Monitoring, language services, and social media teams.

The decentralized verification units at ARD

In Germany, the public service media (PSM) system emerged after the Second World War, inspired by the British model introduced by the Allied forces to ensure independence from state and market influence. Broadcasting was initially fragmented across the four occupation zones before control transferred to German authorities. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) was established in 1954, making it the country’s oldest PSM institution (bpb, 2025). Today, Germany’s PSM landscape reflects its federal structure and comprises three institutions: ARD, a consortium of nine regional broadcasters; ZDF, a national television broadcaster; and Deutschlandradio, providing national radio services. Collectively, they operate about 20 television channels and over 80 radio stations (Sehl, 2024a). For our analysis, we selected ARD due to its larger budget (approximately €6.2 billion), workforce (22,169 employees), and scope compared to the smaller ZDF (€2.2 billion) (ARD, 2025; ARD-ZDF, 2025; bpb, 2025; IFM, 2023). ARD is currently the world’s largest public broadcasting system (IFM, 2023). Deutsche Welle, Germany’s state-funded international broadcaster, is part of the ARD network.

Unlike the BBC, fact-checking at ARD is decentralized, reflecting Germany’s complex public service media (PSM) structure. At ARD, fact-checking is conducted across three units: Faktenfinder, linked to Tagesschau; Faktenfuchs, a regional initiative by Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) focused on Bavaria; and Deutsche Welle’s fact-checking unit targeting an international audience. Faktenfinder was established in 2017 during the German federal election in response to concerns about Russian interference after the 2016 U.S. election. Created within Tagesschau, it became ARD’s first dedicated fact-checking unit addressing potential information disorder. The team consists of two fact-checkers who publish articles on misinformation and disinformation for tagesschau. de. ARD also hosts an internal AI working group monitoring relevant tools and technologies, operating separately from fact-checking units. Deutsche Welle’s fact-checking team was established in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 infodemic and is coordinated by Joscha Weber, who initiated its verification work; it has since expanded to 16 members. By contrast, Faktenfuchs, based at BR, focuses on Bavaria. Founded in 2017, the eight-member team includes a social media listening specialist monitoring online discourse. Discussions are underway to coordinate Faktenfinder, Faktenfuchs, and Deutsche Welle more closely to enhance efficiency and reduce duplication.

Data gathering –Expert interviews and quantitative content analysis

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with representatives of the two analyzed public service media (PSM) organizations—BBC and ARD—to inform data selection and examine the structure and allocation of their verification practices prior to the content analysis.

All four interviews (three from ARD and one from BBC) were recorded with consent and anonymized, as parts were off the record. In compliance with GDPR, transcripts were not uploaded to the Open Science Framework. Two interviewees were senior fact-checkers who had worked at the organization since the establishment of the fact-checking units, while the other two held managerial and editorial roles. Throughout the article, we refer to them as “Interviewee” (abbreviated as ‘I’), followed by their respective number (e.g., I2).

For the content analysis, we focused on Faktenfinder due to its national scope, editorial prominence, and comparability to the BBC’s Reality Check. To address our research question, we analyzed all verification articles (n = 198) published by BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder between January and December 2022. Articles were identified using the Feeder browser extension. We analyzed the entire population, as public service media (PSM) publish fewer fact-checks than global news agencies or independent fact-checkers. The year 2022 was marked by the aftermath of COVID-19, which no longer dominated the agenda. In the UK, major events included Queen Elizabeth II’s death and a political crisis resulting in three prime ministers: Boris Johnson, Liz Truss (45-day tenure), and Rishi Sunak. In Germany, regional elections, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and protests over rising energy prices and inflation shaped public discourse. Data were deductively coded from April to October 2023 by four native speakers with extensive knowledge of German and British political contexts following about 40 hours of training until an acceptable Krippendorff’s alpha was reached. Reliability tests were conducted separately for German and English to isolate ambiguities or codebook flaws from language proficiency issues. Table 1 summarizes categories and reliability scores; the full codebook is provided in the Supplemental material.

Table 1.

Summarized description of categories.

Variables	Summarized categories description	KαEnglish	KαGerman
Target of verification	Online rumors; statements by public figures; or no official adjudication	0.88	1.0
Scrutinized actors	Unknown/ordinary profiles; media; political actors; civil society groups and individuals; business elite; celebrities and influencers	0.88	0.96
Claim checkability	Fact-based (historical data, statistics, legality); comments and opinions; definitions; predictions; promises; causality; investigations; philosophical concepts; others	0.76	0.67¹
Topics of verification	Domestic politics; economy; society and zeitgeist; health; international affairs; human interest	0.80	0.75
Selection criteria	Social media virality; source and target prominence; user request; timeliness; social relevance/impact	0.88	0.88
		Lotus	Lotus
Correction strategies^a	List of 15 correction strategies coded dichotomously (yes/no) (see Supplemental material)	0.76-1.00	0.88-0.98

^aBecause the data for these categories were highly skewed, which impacted Krippendorff’s alpha, we employed the Lottus coefficient.

Findings

The fact-checking output of BBC reality check and Faktenfinder

This section compares the outputs of British and German public broadcasters regarding verification targets (e.g., online rumors vs public figures statements), scrutinized actors, claim checkability, topic distribution, and selection criteria disclosed within their fact-checking content.

Target of verifications

The size of the fact-checking teams is reflected in their 2022 output: BBC Reality Check published 129 articles—nearly twice as much as Faktenfinder’s 69. Faktenfinder’s performance remains notable given its two-person team. Although explanatory articles were excluded from coding, they account for about 20% of Faktenfinder’s output (n = 14) and 29.5% of BBC Reality Check’s (n = 38) (see Table 1, Supplemental material). These aim to educate audiences on identifying disinformation and propaganda: “We try to do something between pre-bunking and debunking” (I2). Importantly, both BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder primarily focus on problematic statements by public figures and politicians, accounting for 81% and 60% of their outputs, respectively (Table 2)—, contrasting with the global trend toward verifying online rumors—the “debunking turn” (Graves et al., 2024) —and consistent with prior research (Cazzamatta, 2025d).

Table 2.

Ratio of verifications targeting online rumors versus public figures’ statements at the BBC and ARD.

Organizations	Target of verifications	n	%
Tageschau	Online rumors	22	40
Tageschau	Public Figures’ statements	33	60
BBC	Online rumors	17	19
BBC	Public Figures’ statements	74	81

These results likely stem from the absence of partnerships with major tech companies such as Meta, unlike many non-PSM organizations. In addition, fact-checking within established media tends to align with news cycles and prevailing political discourses.

Scrutinized actors and labels

To address balance and fairness, we conducted a content analysis of the actors scrutinized by the two organizations and the labels—or absence thereof—assigned to them. Since Faktenfinder focused slightly more on online rumors (Table 2), it includes a higher share of analyses involving unidentified social media users and profiles (23%) than BBC Reality Check (6%). Regarding verifications targeting government versus opposition actors (Figure 1), the BBC focused primarily on national government representatives and politicians (39%), while opposition figures accounted for 6%. In 2022, the UK government was led by the Conservative Party, with Labour as the main opposition, resulting in more statements by government MPs and thus a higher likelihood of scrutiny. Moreover, ruling parties generally make more public statements, policy announcements, and media appearances. Balance, therefore, should not be understood as an artificial 50/50 split. As one BBC interviewee noted (I1), “balance is a wrong word because [it] sort of implies equal scrutiny, whereas BBC editorial guidelines allow you to employ what’s called due impartiality.” The emphasis is thus on proportionality rather than symmetry. The interviewee (I1) explained:

Hypothetically, if two politicians debated and one made ten false claims while the other made three, balance might suggest equal scrutiny. However, in practice, it is reasonable to investigate more claims from the actor making more false statements. Strict adherence to balance would not necessarily reflect an accurate or fair representation of events.

Figure 1.

Actors scrutinized in verification articles by Reality Check and Faktenfinder.

In Germany, the difference is less pronounced (Figure 1), but Faktenfinder verified more opposition claims (11%) than claims from the “traffic light” coalition government (7.3%), comprising the SPD, Greens, and FDP. These opposition checks mainly targeted the far-right AfD rather than the main opposition CDU/CSU. As the interviewee (I2) explained:

In Germany, unlike the US, misinformation by mainstream politicians is less common. We therefore fact-check more claims by the AfD than, for example, the Greens, as the AfD produces more content requiring verification.

In one article, for example, Faktenfinder reported that AfD parliamentary group leader Weidel had indirectly claimed that most COVID patients in intensive care units were vaccinated, allegedly based on figures from the Federal Statistical Office. This claim was unfounded. These findings align with research identifying the far right as a key driver of disinformation, often used as a central political strategy (Bennett and Livingston, 2018). In Germany, where the far-right online scene is more unified than in the UK (Heft et al., 2021), Faktenfinder also scrutinized far-right activists and influencers (6.1%) and alternative partisan websites aligned with far-right ideologies (4%). More broadly, both BBC Reality Check (2.5%) and Faktenfinder (7%) targeted established media outlets when problematic information circulated through traditional channels (Figure 1). For example, Faktenfinder reports that the Austrian right-wing partisan broadcaster AUF1 disseminates far-right and conspiracy-driven content and that Germany is increasingly becoming a central focus of its coverage.

Previous research suggests that public service media (PSM) face greater constraints in directly labeling politicians as liars (Graves, 2018), not only because external fact-checking practices may conflict with traditional norms of journalistic impartiality (Cazzamatta, 2025b; 2025c), but also because such practices have made them frequent targets of far-right attacks (Holtz-Bacha, 2021). Consequently, PSM generally avoid explicit “truth-o-meters” such as PolitiFact’s “mostly false” or “pants on fire” ratings. Instead, evaluative judgments are embedded within narratives and accompanied by contextual explanations. As one German interviewee (I3) noted, “there’s not much that [high-level, non-populist] politicians are saying that is totally wrong.” In the UK, the BBC often refrains from applying labels because opposing claims may both be technically accurate, depending on metrics or time frames. For example, during Prime Minister’s Questions, contradictory statements about NHS waiting lists may be correct based on different measurements. In such cases, “we’re not necessarily saying somebody is right or somebody is wrong, but we’re saying to the audience, well, this is how these figures have been arrived at,” (I1) with the BBC deconstructing the claim accordingly. To illustrate, in October 2022 Rishi Sunak stated in Parliament that there were 3500 more doctors and over 9000 more nurses than the previous year. Rather than labeling the claim as “true” or “misleading,” BBC Verify contextualized it, noting overall staffing increases of roughly 3% while also pointing out that rising nursing vacancies suggested growth had not kept pace with demand. Narrative explanations illustrating statistical applications were used in 63% of Tagesschau’s cases and 34% of the BBC’s (Table 3). Where the situation is clearer, written verdicts such as “partially false” or “false” tend to predominate.

Table 3.

Comparative use of verdicts by BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder.

Organizations	Applied labels – Verdict within texts	Frequency	Percent
Tagesschau	Narrative explanations (no labels)	35	63.6
	FALSE	8	14.5
	Partially false	6	10.9
	Indeterminate	4	7.3
	Mixed verdicts	2	3.6
	Total	55	100
BBC	Narrative explanations (no labels)	31	34.1
	FALSE	24	26.4
	Partially false	18	19.8
	Indeterminate	11	12.1
	TRUE	4	4.4
	Partially true	3.0	3.3
	Total	91.0	100

Checkability of claims and compilation of statements

Contrary to criticisms by Uscinski and Butler (2015, 2013) and consistent with prior research (Birks, 2019), most clims analyzed were clearly fact-based—60% in ARD’s Faktenfinder and 73% in BBC’s Reality Check (Table 4). However, as Table 1 shows, this category was the most complex to code due to the nuanced nature of many political statements. Even among other types of problematic claims, such as investigative assertions, commentary, or opinion, a factual component was typically present, enabling verification and assessment of claim accuracy¹.

Table 4.

Nature of claims verified by BBC Reality Check and ARD Faktenfinder.

Public media	Types of claim	N	%
Tagesschau	Fact-based: Data, statistics, facts comparisons	16	48.5
	Comments & opinions	3	9.1
	Causality	3	9.1
	Not applicable	3	9.1
	Fact-based: Legality questions	2	6.1
	Definitions & broad concepts	2	6.1
	Fact-based: Historical data	1	3.0
	Future predictions	1	3.0
	Promises	1	3.0
	Investigations	1	3.0
	Total	33	100.0
BBC	Fact-based: Data, statistics, facts comparisons	29	39.2
	Fact-based: Legality questions	22	29.7
	Investigations	6	8.1
	Promises	5	6.8
	Future predictions	4	5.4
	Causality	4	5.4
	Fact-based: Historical data	3	4.1
	Others	1	1.4
	Total	74	100.0

Regarding the nature of claims, BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder show no substantial differences. However, differences emerge in presentation, particularly in article structure (Table 5). Faktenfinder addresses a single claim in 83% of articles, whereas BBC Reality Check often compiles multiple claims—either from the same politician on related topics or grouped online rumors on a single issue, such as the war in Ukraine. Such thematic or source-based compilations appear in about 50% of BBC Reality Check articles. It was common to compile the verification of multiple claims made by the Prime Minister during the House of Commons session – e.g. Fact-checking Liz Truss at PMQs or Fact-checking Rishi Sunak’s first PMQs. In other cases, the compilations verified claims made by several Members of Parliament on the same topic—for example, PMQs: Fact-checking claims about asylum and migration (Table 5).

Table 5.

Compilation of claims within articles.

Public media	Claim and rumors compilation	N	%
Faktenfinder	Single claims	46	83.6%
Tagesschau	Compilation of unrelated claims in different contexts by the same claimant	4	7.3%
	Multiple online rumors on the same topic	3	5.5%
	Compilation of multiple claims by various claimants regarding a specific event/topic	2	3.6%
	Total	55	100.0%
BBC reality check	Single claims	40	44.0%
	Compilation of multiple claims by various claimants regarding a specific event/topic	19	20.9%
	Compilation of multiple claims by the same claimant regarding a specific event/topic	15	16.5%
	Multiple online rumors on the same topic	12	13.2%
	Others	3	3.3%
	Compilation of unrelated claims in different contexts by the same claimant	2	2.2%
	Total	91	100.0%

Correction strategies and transparency

All interviewees (I1-I4) emphasized that the core objective of verification is to “walk the audience through [their] process.” This approach serves as a media literacy opportunity, clarifying how information is gathered and news is constructed, thereby bringing the journalistic process closer to audiences (Ratier, 2020). As one interviewee explained, “We’re so transparent in our work… We link every source and provide a box beneath our articles detailing whom we spoke to, how we contacted them, and so forth” (I2). By explaining why claims are incorrect, fact-checkers enhance the persuasiveness of their verifications. They employ a range of strategies to present premises and reasoning that allow readers either to reach the same conclusions or to form a reasoned disagreement (Figure 2). These PSM fact-checking units emphasize transparency by demonstrating “not just what we know, but how we know it” (I1). By making their evidentiary basis and analytical reasoning explicit, these units enable audiences to critically interpret information and navigate public debates more effectively. In doing so, they foster media literacy and deliver a quality-oriented service consistent with the normative public interest mandate of public service broadcasting.

Figure 2.

Verification strategies employed by BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder.

One common strategy is providing background information to help audiences understand the verification process, often supplemented by links or PDFs of source documents and expert interviews (Figure 2). Discussions of data quality—such as poor statistical methods, dataset limitations, lack of longitudinal data, and non-representative samples—are also frequent. This is slightly more pronounced in Germany, partly due to prevalent health misinformation, as studies are often misunderstood or mobilized against vaccination (see below). For example, in assessing an online survey circulating through right-wing channels, ARD argues that flawed methodology renders the results questionable and stresses that sample size alone does not ensure representativeness. While both organizations share many similarities, two differences stand out. First, Faktenfinder more often traces the origins of falsehoods, reflecting its stronger focus on online rumors. Second, it frequently employs a delegitimating strategy, highlighting claimants’ histories of spreading dubious information to question their credibility. To illustrate, in addressing the alleged eastward expansion of NATO and the supposed Western disregard of assurances against expansion, ARD notes that Putin has reiterated this false claim for years.

Topics and selection criteria

International fact-checks dominate in both organizations, accounting for nearly half of BBC Reality Check’s articles (47%) and almost 30% of Faktenfinder’s verifications (Figure 3). This focus reflects the war in Ukraine and ongoing international pandemic regulations during the period studied. Germany, consistent with prior research (Cazzamatta, 2024), shows a high volume of health-related verifications, likely responding to online communication and conspiracy theories associated with the Querdenken movement during the pandemic (Heinke 2022). German coverage also places slightly greater emphasis on environmental and climate issues (7.3%). In the UK, political instability—marked by the resignation of two prime ministers—correlates with a higher share of fact-checks on economic topics (20%) than on domestic politics (15%). The combined impact of Brexit, the war in Ukraine, and the energy crisis contributed to recession, inflation, and rising living costs. Notably, Liz Truss’s 46-day premiership prompted a spike in economic claims following her “mini-budget” of unfunded tax cuts, which destabilized financial markets and undermined fiscal credibility (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Main areas of verification in BBC Reality Check and Faktenfinder.

An analysis of verification topics reveals key factors guiding selection within public service media (PSM). Timeliness—falsehoods linked to current media events—leads, comprising 28% of BBC and 24% of Faktenfinder verifications (Figure 4). This is followed by claimant prominence, present in 23% of cases at both outlets. Social relevance also shapes selection, defined narrowly as claims with broad societal impact, including public health, policymaking, or elections. Although social media virality appears in some cases, it drives selection less strongly than in outlets partnering with Meta. Overall, PSM fact-checking closely aligns with mainstream media agendas and daily news cycles.

Figure 4.

Verification selection criteria within BBC Reality Check and ARD Faktenfinder.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper examines the strategies and verification practices of external fact-checking units and their verification practices within two leading European public service media (PSM) organizations: BBC Reality Check in the UK and ARD’s Faktenfinder in Germany. These institutions represent the two largest public broadcasting systems globally (IFM, 2023) and are known for providing diverse, universal, high-quality, accurate information. Building on research advocating an expanded PSM role in addressing informational disorder—including fact-checking and media literacy (Horowitz et al., 2022; Horowitz and Lowe, 2020; Sehl, 2024a)—this study contributes to PSM and fact-checking scholarship by focusing on verification practices within PSM, a relatively underexplored area. We examine a distinct journalistic subgenre within a specific media context. Existing research largely focuses on single-country cases, often the BBC, or on election periods (Birks, 2019; Morani et al., 2024; Soo et al., 2023; Wahl-Jorgensen et al., 2017). Combining qualitative interviews with fact-checkers and a content analysis of all verification articles published in 2022, this study deepens understanding of how PSM navigate information disorder while upholding core public service values, particularly due impartiality.

In contrast to the traditional understanding of balance or procedural neutrality—implying symmetrical treatment of sources and perspectives, granting equal scrutiny, time, or weight to opposing actors—due impartiality is grounded in proportionality and evidentiary assessment. Under this principle, public service media (PSM) negotiate tensions between their commitments to high-quality, impartial content and the demands of contemporary fact-checking that assess the veracity of claims circulating in public discourse. Guided by due impartiality, they are not required to scrutinize all actors equally; rather, they are expected to provide verification that is proportionate, fair, accurate, and context-sensitive.

Our findings show that despite differing organizational structures—centralized at the BBC and decentralized within ARD—both fact-checking units prioritize scrutiny of public figures and political actors over online rumors, diverging from trends among independent fact-checkers. PSM fact-checkers avoid binary truth labels, favoring narrative explanations that contextualize claims, enhance transparency, and promote media literacy. This approach reflects PSM’s commitment to due impartiality, enabling them to navigate complex political contexts while mitigating accusations of bias and maintaining public trust. Although PSM avoid explicitly labeling mainstream politicians as liars, they also refrain from applying symmetrical verification across the political spectrum, as doing so risks false equivalence and implying parity in credibility where none exists. In practice, actors who make more false claims may receive more intensive scrutiny without breaching impartiality norms. This allows a more accurate representation of contested claims and their evidentiary status. Moreover, PSM fact-checking emphasizes issues linked to current news cycles, claimant prominence, and socially relevant topics such as public health and elections, aligning with broader journalistic agendas. The absence of partnerships with major tech platforms such as Meta appears to shape verification practices, resulting in a comparatively lower focus on social media virality.

This study contributes to the literature by providing the first systematic comparative analysis of fact-checking practices within two major European public broadcasters, showing how institutional contexts shape verification strategies distinct from those of independent fact-checkers and global news agencies (Cazzamatta, 2025a; 2025d). As misinformation and disinformation increasingly threaten democratic discourse, understanding the role of PSM fact-checking offers insights into sustaining informed debate and media trust. Despite widespread media distrust, PSM retain high credibility (Newman et al., 2023) and can reduce public misperceptions (Van Erkel et al., 2024). The fact-checking field currently faces structural challenges: Meta has ended its US partnerships and may discontinue global collaborations, while Google is phasing out its Claim Review program, which supported fact-check visibility in search engines (Cazzamatta, 2026; Graves, 2025). In this context, PSM fact-checking may become more important given their financial stability, independence from Meta, broad reach, and high public trust in Germany and the UK. Future research should extend this analysis to additional PSM systems in Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries and examine audience reception. Policymakers should strengthen support for fact-checking initiatives (Sehl, 2024b) and protect PSM from right-wing populist attacks (Holtz-Bacha, 2021).

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Verification practices in public service media as a bulwark against misinformation: Evidence from the BBC and ARD

Supplemental material for Verification practices in public service media as a bulwark against misinformation: Evidence from the BBC and ARD by Regina Cazzamatta in Journalism

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the financial support of the German Research Council (DFG CA 2840/1-1; Project Number 8212383).

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Grant No: 8212383 and Humboldt Feodor Lynen Fellowship (Alexander von Humboldt Foundation).

ORCID iD

Regina Cazzamatta

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

Author biography

Dr. Regina Cazzamatta is a Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Global Communication at Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT), Finland, and a visiting researcher at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Florence from 2026 to 2028, supported by a Humboldt Feodor Lynen Fellowship for Experienced Researchers. She was Principal Investigator of the DFG-funded comparative project Disinformation Context and the Emergence of Fact-Checking Organisations in Europe and Latin America. She holds a PhD in Media and Communication Studies from the University of Erfurt and was a visiting researcher at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies in Hamburg. She graduated in Communication Studies in São Paulo and completed a postgraduate program in International Journalism at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. She is the author of Brasilien-Berichterstattung in der deutschen Presse and Lateinamerikaberichterstattung der deutschen Presse: Struktur und Entstehungsbedingungen. Her research interests include comparative media systems, disinformation, fact-checking, journalism cultures, political communication, platformization, public spheres, media discourse, news value theory, and international news.

References

Aalberg

Cushion

(2016) Public Service Broadcasting, Hard News, and Citizens’ Knowledge of Current Affairs. Oxford University Press, Vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.38

Amazeen

(2015) Revisiting the epistemology of fact-checking. Critical Review 27(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2014.993890

Amazeen

(2019) Practitioner perceptions: critical junctures and the global emergence and challenges of fact-checking. International Communication Gazette 81(6–8): 541–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518817674

ARD (2025) Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in der ARD. https://www.ard.de/die-ard/aufgaben-der-ard/Mitarbeiterinnen-und-Mitarbeiter-in-der-ARD-100/

ARD-ZDF (2025) Jahresbericht 2024 (Deutschlandradio Beitragsservice). ARD-ZDF. [Deutschlandradio Beitragsservice]. https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/e175/e9622/Jahresbericht_2024.pdf

Bennett

Livingston

(2018) The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication 33(2): 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317

Birks

(2019) Fact-Checking Journalism and Political Argumentation A British Perspective. Springer International Publishing.

Blöbaum

(2004) Organisationen, Programme und Rollen. Die Struktur des Journalismus in systemtheoretischer Perspektive. In: Löffelholz

(ed) Theorien Des Journalismus: Ein Diskursives Handbuch: [Lehrbuch], pp. 202–215. VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss.

bpb (2025) 75 Jahre Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk: Von Der Gründung Der ARD Bis Heute. Bundeszentrale Für Politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/311191/75-jahre-oeffentlich-rechtlicher-rundfunk-von-der-gruendung-der-ard-bis-heute/

10.

Cazzamatta

(2024) Global misinformation trends: commonalities and differences of topics, sources of falsehoods and deception strategies across eight countries. New Media & Society 27(11): 14614448241268896. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241268896

11.

Cazzamatta

(2025a) Fact-checkers as new journalistic mediators: news agencies’ verification units and platform dynamics. Media and Communication 13: 9867. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9867

12.

Cazzamatta

(2025b) Objectively engaged: the discursive constitution of Latin American fact-checking mission statements and methods. Journalism Practice 1: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2546657

13.

Cazzamatta

(2025c) Redefining objectivity: exploring types of evidence by fact-checkers in four European countries. European Journal of Communication 40: 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231251319145

14.

Cazzamatta

(2025d) The content homogenization of fact-checking through platform partnerships: a comparison between eight countries. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 102(1): 120–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241261725

15.

Cazzamatta

(2025e) The truth game: verification factors behind fact-checkers’ selection decisions. Journalism 27: 14648849251371952. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251371952

16.

Cazzamatta

(2026) From moderation to chaos: meta’s fact-checking and the battle over truth and free speech. New Media & Society 1(0): 14614448251413687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444825141368

17.

Chadwick

(2017) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

18.

Council of Europe (2022) Governance and Independence of Public Service Media (nos 2022–1). IRIS plus. European Audiovisual Observatory, pp. 1–119.

19.

Cunningham

(2003) Re-thinking Objectivity. https://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php?page=all

20.

Cushion

Kyriakidou

(2025) Countering Misinformation in Political Reporting: Enhancing Journalistic Legitimacy. 1ST ED. EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY PRE.

21.

Dobbs

(2012) The Rise of Political Fact-Checking. How Reagan Inspired a Journalistic Moviment: A Reporter’s Eye View. New America Foundation. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/15318/15318.pdf

22.

Edgington

(2025) Perceptions, Power, and Polarisation: The Political Impact of UK fact-checking. Reuters Institute, pp. 1–43. [Journalist Fellowship Paper]. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-01/RISJFellowsPaper_TomE_MT24_Final.pdf

23.

European Audiovisual Observatory (2019) TV-and Public Service Audience Market Share (1999-2018). https://yearbook.obs.coe.int/s/document/5785/tv-aud-public-service-audience-market-share-1999-2018

24.

European Audiovisual Observatory (2021) Fernsehen. Marktanteile öffentlich-rechtlicher Sender im europäischen Vergleich. European Audiovisual Observatory. https://yearbook.obs.coe.int/s/document/5785/tv-aud-public-service-audience-market-share-1999-2018

25.

Graves

(2016) Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-checking in American Journalism. Columbia University Press.

26.

Graves

(2017) Anatomy of a fact check: objective practice and the contested epistemology of fact checking: anatomy of a fact check. Communication, Culture & Critique 10(3): 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12163

27.

Graves

(2018) Boundaries not drawn: mapping the institutional roots of the global fact-checking movement. Journalism Studies 19(5): 613–631, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1196602

28.

Graves

(2022) Fact-checking movement. In: Borchard

Sterling

Publications

(eds) The Sage Encyclopedia of Journalism. 2nd edition. Sage Reference, pp. 631–634.

29.

Graves

(2025) Will the EU fight for the truth on Facebook and Instagram? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/13/meta-facebook-factchecking-eu

30.

Graves

Mantzarlis

(2020) Amid political spin and online misinformation, fact checking adapts. The Political Quarterly 91(3): 585–591, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12896

31.

Graves

Bélair-Gagnon

Larsen

(2024) From public reason to public health: professional implications of the “debunking turn” in the global fact-checking field. Digital Journalism 12(10): 1417–1436. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2218454

32.

Hallin

(1989) The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. University of California Press.

33.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press.

34.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

, et al. (2011) Mapping journalism cultures across nations: a comparative study of 18 countries. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2010.512502

35.

Heft

Knüpfer

Reinhardt

, et al. (2021) Toward a transnational information ecology on the right? Hyperlink networking among right-wing digital news sites in Europe and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics 26(2): 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220963670

36.

Heinke

(2022) The security threat posed by the corona-skeptic querdenken. CTC SENTINEL. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point 15(3): 18–24.

37.

Holtz-Bacha

(2021) The kiss of death. Public service media under right-wing populist attack. European Journal of Communication 36(3): 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323121991334

38.

Horowitz

Lowe

(2020) Public service media in the era of information disorder. Collaboration as a solution for achieving universalism. In: Savage

Medina

Lowe

(eds) Universalism in Public Service Media. University of Gothenburg, pp. 175–190.

39.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1987948

40.

Humprecht

Esser

Van Aelst

(2020) Resilience to online disinformation: a framework for cross-national comparative research. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25(3): 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219900126

41.

IFM (2023) Die 12 größten öffentlich-rechtlichen Systeme weltweit (2023). Institut Für Medien- Und Kommunikationspolitik. https://mediadb.eu/die-zehn-groessten-oeffentlich-rechtlichen-systeme-2023/

42.

Koliska

Roberts

(2024) Epistemology of fact checking: an examination of practices and beliefs of fact checkers around the world. Digital Journalism 13: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2361264

43.

Luhmann

(2009) Die Realität der Massenmedien. 4th ed.. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

44.

Mahl

Zeng

Schäfer

, et al. (2024) “We Follow the Disinformation”: Conceptualizing and Analyzing Fact-Checking Cultures Across Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 19401612241270004. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241270004

45.

Maras

(2013) Objectivity in Journalism. Polity Press.

46.

Morani

Hughes

Cushion

, et al. (2024) Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: a comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK. Journalism 26: 14648849241273599. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241273599

47.

Newman

Fletcher

Eddy

, et al. (2023) Digital News Report 2023. Reuters Institute. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf

48.

OSCE (2022) Report on the sixth expert roundtable: the role of public service media in countering disinformation. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/4/522343.pdf

49.

Ratier

(2020) Educação Midiática E Transparência Jornalística: Aproximações E Possibilidades [Intercom – Sociedade Brasileira De Estudos Interdisciplinares Da Comunicação]. 43 Congresso Brasileiro De Ciências Da Comunicação. Sociedade Brasileira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação (Intercom). Available at: https://portalintercom.org.br/uploads/wysiwyg/programacao-gps-2020-26-nov.pdf

50.

Ryan

(2025) 2025 Census: Fact-Checkers Persevere as Politicians, Platforms Turn up Heat. Duke Reporters’ LAB. https://reporterslab.org/2025/06/19/fact-checkers-persevere-as-politicians-platforms-turn-up-heat/

51.

Sehl

(2020) Public service media in a digital media environment: performance from an audience perspective. Media and Communication 8(3): 359–372. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3141

52.

Sehl

(2024a) Funding of public service media in Germany. The Political Quarterly 95(1): 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13370

53.

Sehl

(2024b) Public service media as pivotal in combating misinformation and disinformation: prerequisites and approaches. European Journal of Communication 39: 02673231241294185–02673231241294594. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231241294185

54.

Soo

Morani

Kyriakidou

, et al. (2023) Reflecting party agendas, challenging claims: an analysis of editorial judgements and fact-checking journalism during the 2019 UK general election campaign. Journalism Studies 24(4): 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2169190

55.

Strömbäck

Tsfati

Boomgaarden

, et al. (2020) News media trust and its impact on media use: toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association 44(2): 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338

56.

Suomalainen

Nykänen

Seeck

, et al. (2025) Fact-checking in journalism: an epistemological framework. Journalism Studies 26: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492729

57.

Urbán

Polyák

Horváth

(2023) How public service media disinformation shapes Hungarian public discourse. Media and Communication 11(4): 7148. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i4.7148

58.

Uscinski

(2015) The epistemology of fact checking (is still naìve): rejoinder to amazeen. Critical Review . A Journal of Politics and Society 27(2): 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2015.1055892

59.

Uscinski

Butler

(2013) The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review 25(2): 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2013.843872

60.

Van Erkel

PFA

Van Aelst

De Vreese

, et al. (2024) When are fact-checks effective? An experimental study on the inclusion of the misinformation source and the source of fact-checks in 16 European countries. Mass Communication & Society 27: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2321542

61.

Vinhas

Bastos

(2022) Fact-checking misinformation: eight notes on consensus reality. Journalism Studies 23(4): 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2031259

62.

Wahl-Jorgensen

Berry

Garcia-Blanco

, et al. (2017) Rethinking balance and impartiality in journalism? How the BBC attempted and failed to change the paradigm. Journalism 18(7): 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916648094

63.

Wardle

Derakhshan

(2017) Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making (Council of Europe Report). The Council of Europe, pp. 1–108. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB