LATVIAN FACT-CHECKERS AND THE CONTESTED FIELD

Abstract

Fact-checking is a genre of journalism that examines public claims and issues a verdict about their truthfulness. In the contemporary information environment that is open to a wide variety of information sources, including false and misleading ones, fact-checking helps the public to better evaluate the information they may encounter in either mass media or social media.

However, a positive view of fact-checking is far from universal. It has faced opposition from politicians — especially those whose claims have been refuted — and from audience members who reject fact-checkers' authority to say whether something is true. Research shows that labeling problematic content, including adding fact-checks, is a promising intervention with many challenges (Morrow et al., 2022). Still, some studies have pointed to problems with how fact-checking is carried out. For example, their methodologies are not immune to flaws (Uscinski & Butler, 2013; Nieminen & Sankari, 2021), and different fact- checking organizations may arrive at different judgments (Lim, 2018; Marietta, Barker, & Bowser, 2015). A sign of shifting attitudes toward fact-checking was this year’s announcement by the social media company Meta that it will stop fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram (Kaplan, 2025). After years of working with independent fact-checkers, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, announced that “the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they have created.” Such sentiments highlight the need for continued analysis of fact-checkers’ practices concerning selection, analysis, and assessment of claims.