Fact-checking under fire as tech giants cut support amid misinformation surge
'Businessman Donald Trump is a fact-checker's dream ... and nightmare,' I wrote in the fact-check of his announcement speech. How little did I realise that would be true. Trump decreed that mainstream news organisations were 'the enemy of the people', undermining faith in traditional reporting, and insisted to his followers that he was the best source of information.
In ending its work with fact-checkers, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg falsely claimed that fact-checkers censored free speech by being 'too politically biased', echoing Trump administration arguments. The Washington Post did not participate in the Meta programme, but any Facebook user had the option to opt out of having posts fact-checked. Many fact-checkers would liken their work to nutritional labels on snack foods – providing more information about online content. People are free to ignore the warnings, just as people can ignore nutritional labels.
Meanwhile, although the European Union enacted a law, the Digital Services Act, to ensure online platforms combat misinformation (such as by relying on fact-checkers), European fact-checkers are concerned that enforcement of the law could be weakened as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration – which opposes such regulation.
Indeed, the Trump administration has also pressured Brazil to end its regulation of online platforms. The issue is sensitive in Brazil because the January 8, 2023 attack on the Brazilian Congress was inspired by clips spread across social media platforms of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters one year earlier. Brazilian officials insisted they will not back down in the face of Trump's threats, saying regulating social media platforms is a consumer safety issue, like driving laws. 'Self-regulation has proven a failure,' Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes said.
'Your freedom does not mean to be free to go the wrong way and crash into another car and kill another driver,' Cármen Lúcia, the president of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, told the fact-checking conference.
Before Trump entered politics, I found that many politicians spun or dissembled but most tried to keep their claims tethered to the truth. Our fact checks covered a range of topics, such as the accuracy of government statistics on students dying from alcohol or exaggerated claims about sex trafficking, which led lawmakers to stop using them.
President Barack Obama told the occasional whopper – 'If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan' – but it was the rare politician, such as Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann, who constantly spouted Pinocchio-laden nonsense. Obama's Vice-President, Joe Biden, also had a reputation for mangling the truth: in 2011, Biden touted an Obama-era jobs bill by claiming the number of rapes in Flint, Michigan, had – depending on the hour of the day – doubled, tripled or even quadrupled because the number of police had been reduced. There was no evidence to support any of his statistics.
But Bachmann and Biden were outliers. In the 2012 presidential campaign between Obama and Mitt Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, the two candidates were neck-and-neck in their average Pinocchio rating. Indeed, they had the lowest average number of Pinocchios of the major 2012 presidential candidates.
They also took fact checks seriously. Both candidates dropped talking points after a negative fact-check rating. An Obama administration official explained to me how, when faced with a choice of figures, the administration took the more modest number in hopes of avoiding Pinocchios. I heard from a campaign source that during debate prep, Obama, to his great annoyance, was told he couldn't use a statistic because it had gotten Pinocchios. Obama's campaign manager even sent a lengthy letter to the Post editor complaining that my Pinocchio ratings were undermining his attacks on Romney's business record.
The expectation that politicians would stick close to the truth began to erode with Trump's emergence. He claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey had celebrated the 9/11 attacks – and doubled down even after my fact check proved this was a fantasy. He invented statistics – that the unemployment rate, then pegged at 4.9%, was really 42% – and kept repeating them, no matter how many times he was fact-checked.
In 2016, Trump's opponents still cared about the facts. Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaign had a wall where they posted positive fact checks. Ohio Governor John Kasich dropped a talking point simply in response to my question for a possible fact check. Hillary Clinton's staff worked hard to find policy experts to vouch for her statistics. (Her comments on her private email server were less defensible.)
But Trump didn't care. He kept rising in the polls and eventually won the presidency. Other politicians took notice and followed his lead.
Besides Trump, something else changed the nature of truth in the mid-2010s: the rise of social media. The Fact Checker was launched in 2007, one year after the creation of Twitter and when Facebook had only 50 million users. By 2012, Facebook had 1 billion followers; it reached nearly 1.6 billion in 2015. Trump adroitly used Twitter – where he had 2.76 million followers at the start of 2015 – and other social media to spread his message. Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States was the most-talked-about moment on Facebook among the 2016 candidates in all of 2015, according to Facebook data.
Social media helped fuel the rise of Trump – and made it easier for false claims to circulate. Russian operatives in 2016 used fake accounts on social media to spread disinformation and create divisive content – tactics that led companies such as Meta to begin to use fact-checkers to identify misleading content. But the political forces that benefited from false information – such as Trump and his allies – led a backlash against such efforts, saying it was a form of censorship. Now tech companies are scaling back their efforts to combat misinformation.
In Trump's second term, even venerable institutions such as the State Department – which I covered for nine years – spout falsehoods to attack efforts to combat disinformation. 'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticising their own governments,' the department said in an X, formerly Twitter post on July 22. 'This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.' (The post was in response to a French Government post promoting the Digital Services Act.) When I asked the State Department for evidence of the claim that 'thousands' had been convicted, the department twice asked for more time to respond – and then declined to comment.
Many on the left and right argue that fact-checking is merely another form of opinion journalism, disguised behind a veneer of objectivity. But research found that the three main American fact-checkers – The Fact Checker, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org – reached the same conclusion on similar statements at least 95% of the time. Of course, some might say this only shows we are all biased in the same way.
During Trump's first term, The Fact Checker team documented that he made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims. Week after week, I would write fact checks unpacking his latest misstatements, and Trump generally earned Four Pinocchios – the rating for a whopper. But I sense that the country has gotten so used to Trump exaggerating the truth that it no longer seems surprising. I chose not to repeat the exercise in his second term.
Even as he racked up Pinocchios, Trump mentioned them almost 20 times during his first administration. He either complained about receiving Pinocchios or cited them when I awarded Pinocchios to one of his political foes, such as then California Representative Adam Schiff.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump sometimes mentioned Pinocchios, such as in a campaign stop in Waunakee, Wisconsin, in October. 'I have to be very careful when I talk because the fake news, if I say something wrong, a little wrong, if I'm 3% off ... they'll give me Pinocchios,' he told a rally. 'You know the Pinocchio? The Washington Post, they give you Pinocchios. If you say something perfectly, they give you a Pinocchio.'
But since Trump took office for a second time in January, he hasn't mentioned Pinocchios again. In an era where false claims are the norm, it's much easier to ignore the fact-checkers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
The American People Are Inwardly Dead. Are All Western Peoples?
The post mortems on the re-election of Donald Trump after his disastrous first term, and an interregnum of relative normalcy under Joe Biden, continue on both sides of the Atlantic. Confining their examination to the political level, the pundits are missing the mark by a mile. Skimming along the surface like water bugs, journalists like Jake Tapper and Ezra Klein the USA, and Timothy Garton Ash in the UK are focusing on the failure of Democrats to replace an aging and declining President Biden, who had promised to only run for one term, with a younger, more vibrant candidate. Without addressing the spiritual, cultural and philosophical levels of our descent into national and global darkness, we cannot understand how we came to this pass, much less how to halt the slide into the abyss. In short, the most powerful nation on Earth twice elected a fascistic narcissist because this nation had first lost its soul, it's essential intactness a people. The question is, given America's cultural influence in the global society, how many other peoples have inwardly expired? Looking no deeper than political excrescence and no further back than Biden's last two years, Tapper, Klein and Ash are united in blaming Joe for not getting out of the race earlier. In the words of the Brit, 'Had Biden cleared the way for a Democratic primary in autumn 2023 the strongest candidate could have defeated Trump, and the entire world would have been spared the disaster now unfolding.' The commentariat on both sides of the pond are clinging to the wisdom-of-the-people illusion as what passed for democracy corrodes in real time. They echo the refrain, 'In 2023 77% of Americans thought Biden was too old to be president for another four years,' but the Democratic poobahs wouldn't listen. Timothy Garton Ash makes a statement sure to rile up 97% of Americans: 'This partly stems from the 237-year-old US constitutional device of rolling your prime minister and monarch into one.' It's a bit rich for people upholding the decrepit institution of monarchy to criticise the modern-day empire that replaced their empire for not ousting a decrepit leader, given that Americans fought a war of independence to free us from their monarchy, which was already decrepit in 1775. With regard to the present, when 'the people' are moribund, it matters little how decent the candidate is. The way things played out was no accident of history, or the result of Jill Biden and the 'politburo' (their word) around Joe concealing his decrepitude. Even now, with the benefit of double hindsight, there's widespread willful blindness. Journalists, academics and the commentariat should have seen after Trump's coup attempt that a growing darkness had engulfed America, and without a basic change in course authoritarianism was inevitable. Now, it's much harder to rid a nation of a tyrant than to prevent him from rising to power. In a column I wrote in June of 2022, 'Indict the Bastard,' I said that if Trump wasn't indicted and tried for his political crimes in time to keep him out of office, he and the servile Republican Party would steal the election, as they had tried to do with the January 6 2020 coup attempt. Though I've never underestimated the stupidity of the American people, I didn't think Trump would win cleanly over Biden or Harris. At the moment the Repubs are brazenly planning to steal both the midterm elections. They're ruthlessly gerrymandering districts in Texas, and will do so in every other state they can under the direction of their dictator, who said today 'we're entitled' to add more Republican seats to the House and Senate. Trump knows that if the Democrats win both Houses of Congress, the House will impeach him for a third time, and this time, if the Democrats control the Senate, he'll be convicted and removed from office. The governors of California and New York are saying they're going to fight fire with fire. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, called it a war yesterday. America is entering a gerrymandering civil war, but without a living, irate citizenry behind them, the Democrats are going to lose again. Deadness of the heart is the cultural and spiritual background that allowed the iniquity of Trumpism to emerge, just as it is the underlying reality that allows Netanyahu's campaign of starvation and genocide in Gaza to continue. Those who still have a beating chamber in their heart must face the virus of indifference if we are to rid ourselves of this global malignancy. The metaphysical momentum for our perilous predicament (and by 'our' I don't just mean Americans) has been building for a very long time. Here in California, the last best place on Earth, it's clear that man has reached the end of his long run, and no appeal to indigenous peoples or our indigenous past can meet the challenge we face as individuals and a species. Three or four of the nine core tipping points of the Earth's ecosystem have already been breached, and the rest are on the verge of being breached. The cornerstone nation-state has crumbled, as Israel's genocide in Gaza and Russia's WWI trench-warfare-plus-drones in Ukraine make a gut-wrenching mockery of the international/multilateral system. Radical change is imperative at all levels in a globalized world, but callow thinkers like Ezra Klein cling to a nationalistic framework and fantasise about 'abundance,' in an updated version of Reagan's trickle down economics of 40 years ago. Irrespective of the nationalistic mindset, that's an inherently false hope, since giving priority to material abundance ineluctably produces tremendous inequality. Why? Because it doesn't address human motivations of greed, power, comparison, competition and consumerism. Though the elites of media and academia have to think, speak and write within their prescribed lines and limits, those of us who aren't serving corporations or clicks can and must think more broadly, and especially, more deeply.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
NASA to fast-track plan to put nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030
By Audrey Courty A nuclear reactor would be useful for long-term stays on the Moon. Photo: 123RF Analysis - US Transport Secretary Sean Duffy has announced the US wants to be the first nation to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon after an internal directive showed he ordered the space agency NASA to fast-track the plan. "We're going to bring nuclear fission to the lunar surface to power our base," Duffy wrote on social media X on Thursday, local time. "If you lead in space, you lead on Earth." A directive written by Duffy - first reported by Politico and seen by Agence France Presse (AFP) - demands that NASA build a nuclear reactor that could be used to generate power on the Moon within five years. It is the first major policy change by Duffy since President Donald Trump appointed him as acting head of the space agency, and it comes just three months after China and Russia announced they were considering a joint effort to also put a nuclear power station on the Moon. But what would a nuclear reactor help achieve? And what is driving this new space race? Here's what to know. Nuclear reactors are the heart of a nuclear power plant. They create electricity by producing a carefully controlled nuclear chain reaction. Over the years, NASA has funded multiple nuclear reactor research projects. Photo: ABC Four Corners: Ryan Sheridan According to the New York Times , Duffy's directive calls for the agency to solicit proposals from commercial companies for a reactor that could generate 100 kilowatts of power and would be ready for launch in late 2029. That's enough electricity to power between 50 and 100 Australian households at once. As extraordinary as it sounds, this idea to use nuclear energy in space is not new. Since 2000, NASA has been investing in nuclear reactor research, including in 2022, when it awarded three US$5 million contracts to develop initial designs for the Moon. But those designs were smaller, producing 40 kilowatts, and were for demonstration purposes to show nuclear power "is a safe, clean, reliable option," NASA said at the time. A nuclear reactor would be useful for long-term stays on the Moon, as the Trump administration looks to revitalise space exploration. One lunar day lasts four weeks on Earth, with two weeks of continual sunshine followed by two weeks of cold darkness. This cycle makes it difficult for a spacecraft or a Moon base to survive with just solar panels and batteries. Having a source of power independent of the Sun would be key to a sustained human presence on the lunar surface for at least 10 years, NASA has previously said. In the internal directive, Duffy also cites China and Russia's plans to put a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. "The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first," he writes, according to AFP. Artemis is a reference to NASA's Moon exploration program, which aims to send four astronauts to the lunar surface in 2026 to establish a lasting presence near the south pole. Further, Duffy notes it would pave the way for Mars exploration efforts. "To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high-power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly," he reportedly says. Amid renewed competition for space dominance - more than 50 years after the Cold War spurred the first man to walk on the Moon - it is worth noting that a 1967 UN agreement says no nation can own the Moon. Duffy's comments about the potential for another country to declare a "keep-out zone" on its surface appear to be referring to an agreement called the Artemis Accords. In 2020, seven nations initially signed the agreement to establish principles on how countries should cooperate on the Moon. Since then, 49 more have done so, including Australia, but China is noticeably absent from the list. These principles include so-called "safety zones" to be established around operations and assets that countries build on the Moon to prevent interference. The race to the Moon is driven by scientific knowledge and technological advances, as well as the prospect of accessing valuable resources. In a 2015 article published on its website, NASA explains why it plans to mine the Moon and how the "lunar gold rush" could work. Citing data from geological surveys, the space agency says the Moon contains three crucial elements: water, helium and rare earth metals. The water reserves frozen inside shadowed craters could be used for drinking, and could even be converted into rocket fuel to support future missions to Mars, according to NASA. The agency says helium would support developments in the energy sector, like nuclear fusion. As for rare earth metals, it says they would boost the supplies needed for emerging technologies, like smartphones, computers and medical equipment. China has also tapped the Moon's potential and made giant leaps in space exploration and technology in recent years. It has built a space station that is manned by taikonauts, landed a rover on Mars, and became the first nation to touch down on the far side of the Moon. China, too, wants to set up a lunar base and send people to Mars, adding a layer of political rivalry to the race. - ABC
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariff moves suggest Indian and US co-operation over China can no-longer be counted on
Until that point, his Administration had been angling to reduce India's trade barriers but said nothing about its two years of buying Russian oil at a wartime discount. Before the shock of Trump's announcement in April of sweeping global tariffs, the world's two largest democracies seemed to be enjoying the friendship that its leaders had forged. At a meeting with Trump at the White House in February, India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, described India's intention to become one of the world's most advanced economies, with the US as a partner. 'In the language of America, it's 'Make India Great Again' — Miga,' he said. 'When America and India work together, this Maga plus Miga becomes a 'mega partnership for prosperity.'' Trump smiled. Left unmentioned but lingering just out of sight was China, the only country with a population to rival India's and an economy to stand in its way. China is also far and away America's most important economic competitor. Together, the US and India were seen as ready to use each other to try to restrain China's might. Total trade between the US and India was roughly US$130 billion last year. India's top exports to America include pharmaceuticals, auto parts, electrical goods, and gemstones. Modi's confidence in enlisting the US in its economic rise was well grounded. US administrations have been courting India as a geopolitical ally for more than a quarter of a century, since India announced its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, it said, to China. And American dollars have poured into India as China's economy has matured and become more assertive. The Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine were the catalysts for a surge in investment. Multinational companies grew excited about doing business in India, to reduce the risk of exposure to China as it girds for a trade war with the US and possibly a real war with Taiwan. Manufacturing and professional services led the way. Wall Street followed, banking on the future growth of India, with its relatively young population and enviable political stability. But over the past week, Trump's escalating attacks on India have suddenly undermined this joint venture and sent reverberations throughout the business worlds of both countries. Today, an executive order by Trump said that India would face an extra 25% tariff starting on August 27 if it continued to buy oil from Russia. That levy on Indian goods imported into the US would come on top of a 25% tariff Trump announced last week, which is set to take effect tomorrow and on its own ranks as one of the highest rates in Asia. India's Foreign Ministry responded to Trump's executive order, reiterating that the country's motives for importing oil from Russia were tied to the energy needs of its 1.4 billion people. It was 'extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest,' the ministry's statement said. Indian officials had signalled over the weekend that they did not intend to stop buying Russian oil. With his tariff threats, Trump has thrown months of trade talks between both countries into question. Just a couple of weeks ago, negotiators and business leaders sounded upbeat. Even with some difficult details to be settled, the expectation was that India and the US mean too much to each other to let a global trade war tear them apart. US President Donald Trump with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on February 13. With threats of tariffs up to 50%, Trump seems to be scrapping America's plan to turn India into a counterweight to China, declaring instead that it was a 'dead economy'. Photo / Eric Lee, The New York Times Modi was one of the first world leaders to visit Trump in Washington after he returned to the White House in January. The two men had long shared what was by all appearances a close relationship. As political leaders, both are regarded as strongmen. The US was earlier wary of Modi, who had been denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he played a role in the deadly anti-Muslim riots in 2002. But he was embraced when he became Prime Minister in 2014. Part of the calculation was based on security and the possible future of military alliances across Asia. Yet, India's attractive qualities as a partner in defence always hinged on the promise of its economy. Companies such as Apple have poured billions into India, which in 2023 eclipsed China in population, with eyes on India's domestic market and its capacity to export manufactured goods to the US and elsewhere. Those investments were supposed to be better than profitable; they were supposed to reduce or eliminate everyone's dependence on China to be the factory of the world. The 25% tariff alone, already much higher than those imposed on Asian competitors including Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea, would reduce the viability of such a trade. A 50% tariff would kill it. Yesterday, Trump took aim at two other industries that were explicitly being developed in India as an alternative to China. Pharmaceuticals, where India has world-beating advantages and sells more than US$10b a year to the US, is to face a special tariff that could eventually reach 250%, Trump said, to be announced 'within a week or so'. Eli Lilly, as one of many American corporations that have invested in India, for example, recently invested US$3b in an Indian factory. India makes nearly 40% of the generic drugs bought in the US. Trump's plan is to bring back manufacturing to the US, which is also the reason he has given for imposing another special tariff on semiconductors. Unfortunately for Indian and American companies, and some in East Asia too, everyone has been spending to make India competitive in this sector. Micron, based in Idaho, has taken advantage of Indian government subsidies to put US$2.5b into building chipmaking facilities in Modi's home state of Gujarat. High finance has also followed brick-and-mortar businesses. The Indian stock market has been on a bull run, finding enthusiastic new buyers among middle-class Indians. That made foreign investors eager for private deals. Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of Blackstone, a New York investment firm, said this year that it was putting US$11b into Indian data centres to fuel the global artificial intelligence boom. A Mumbai-based investment professional, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said there was much more at stake in these investments than their dollar value. Bets like Blackstone's are about the future of business between India, China, and the US, he said, and bring expertise from one economy to another. India was benefitting from that. But now it looks like a vulnerability. The rupture of the relationship has generated huge uncertainty. Who wants to be responsible for making the next big bet? Some parts of the US-Indian equation look relatively secure. The trade in goods between the two countries has never been as important to their economic relationship as their trade in services and other people-to-people exchanges. Indians are just as present in American boardrooms as American-trained Indians are in Mumbai's corner offices. One aspect of this exchange, the proliferation of globally integrated, high-end offices in India — first in information technology and then across the professions — has remained a bright spot. Worth US$65b last year, it is more valuable than the total trade deficit in goods. China does not hold a candle to India's ability as a hub for office work other countries send its way. As frightening as the new tariffs are for many Indian factories, most American investors who have built stakes in India are not yet fleeing. They do, however, remember what happened in 2020, when India and China traded blows at their border and 24 soldiers were killed. Almost overnight, Chinese companies were forced to ditch their Indian investments at a loss. A war of words and tariffs is different, of course. However, Indian and American co-operation around China is no longer something that anyone can count on. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alex Travelli Photographs by: Saumya Khandelwal, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
