- 1 Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan, Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework f (...)
1Information disorder, encompassing various forms of misinformation such as disinformation, malinformation, and misappropriation, challenges the integrity of public, discourse, which poses a significant threat to democratic societies.1 It disrupts the information landscape, erodes trust in institutions and media, and can be weaponized to manipulate public opinion and destabilize democratic processes. In response, fact-checking has emerged as a frontline defense against false information. Yet, this practice now finds itself at a critical juncture, simultaneously championed as essential to democracy and challenged as potentially partisan or even authoritarian—raising questions about its future effectiveness and legitimacy. This special issue of InMedia addresses these pressing tensions, offering timely analyses of fact-checking’s evolving role amid recent seismic shifts in politics, regulation, and global digital policy. The articles presented here examine the evolving practices, technologies, and impacts of fact-checking initiatives across various contexts.
- 2 Laurent Bigot, “Fact-checking,” Publictionnaire. Dictionnaire encyclopédique et critique des public (...)
2As Laurent Bigot2 reminds us, the practice of fact checking was first deployed in media editorial offices. Fact checking process refers to the internal verification of facts (i.e., in editorial offices and before publication), or the internal verification of information with the help of facts. It can be dated from the 1920s, when Time Magazine started hiring fact checkers who were tasked to verify names, dates, figures, data, and facts before publishing.
- 3 Pascal Froissart, L’Invention du fact-checking. Enquête sur la « clinique des rumeurs », Boston, 19 (...)
3In the 1990s, a more grassroots style of fact-checking developed which debunked rumors or claims online, and this practice has particularly grown with the prevalence of social media. A practice also inherited from the USA as Pascal Froissart3 reminds us: on March 1st, 1942, during World War II, the Boston Herald started publishing a weekly column named the “rumor clinic.” It aimed at fighting the poison of rumor, examining it and exterminating it. The column was approved by the “Massachusetts Committee of Public Welfare” (a sort of civil protection committee). The column presented a description of the rumor, followed by a description of the “facts,” which served to counter the rumor. Although short-lived (93 weeks of publication), this tool for controlling rumors is one of the roots of an attachment to the objectivity of facts, akin to a principle of transparency. Most journalists in the USA started talking about this column, which became an emblem of the fight against wartime propaganda.
- 4 Françoise Laugée, “Fact checking,” La Revue européenne des médias et du numérique 20, (2011). https (...)
4This evolved into its own journalistic practice of checking the accuracy of public figures’ statements.4 In the early 2000s, pure players such as Factcheck.org (2003), launched by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, started verifying public discourses and decoding language strategies. It was followed by initiatives coming from legacy media themselves, with a relevant example being The Fact Checker, a political blog hosted by the Washington Post website. Thus, the history of fact-checking started during the 20th century with verifying rumors during war and evolved to challenging political statements. More recently, with the introduction of post-truth era in 2016, fact checking also means investigating online rumors and it is considered as a professional responsibility of journalists. What this history shows is that fact-checking has been developing further as a distinguished mainstay within journalism. This evolution is changing the definition of what journalism is or should be: journalism built on factual evidence, which has not always been the main goal of this professional field. The values and characteristics of fact-checking have been codified in professional associations like the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which demand transparency of process, sources used, funding, as well as open correction policies for their audiences.
- 5 Ysé Vauchez, “Les mythes professionnels des fact-checkeurs: Un journalisme de données au service de (...)
5Fact-checking initiatives may help journalism regain legitimacy, which is essential in contemporary societies where people have lost trust in the media, in journalists, and in their sources. As Ysé Vauchez5 notes, fact-checking using raw data is seen as reliable and ensures journalists’ independence from potentially biased sources. Furthermore, highlighting the practice of verification with imbedded links to sources could contribute to a culture of transparency in journalism. This behind-the-scenes presentation of the journalistic work of verifying data further reliability and information for the public even if they disagree with the journalist’s conclusions. Finally, the supposed objectivity of fact-checking is promoted as a value that runs counter to the development of commentator journalism. Alexandre Joux and Brigitte Sebbah’s survey of Decodex journalists also revealed the extent to which fact-checking can serve to renew confidence in the media:
- 6 Alexandre Joux and Brigitte Sebbah, “Les représentations implicites du pouvoir des médias d’informa (...)
Through its promoters, this system [...] implicitly aims to reaffirm the role of the news media as an essential institution of democracy, by making public discourse transparent and controlling it using methods deemed incontestable.6
- 7 Louis Wiard, Geoffroy Patriarche, Marie Dufrasne and Olivier Rasquinet, Folk theories of info-democ (...)
6Today, we know that fact-checking systems come up against several obstacles. In particular, it has been observed that those who follow fact-checking publications are more often than not citizens who are already aware of the problem of false information. A study carried out by Louis Wiard7 and his colleagues in the Edmo Belux project showed the extent to which individuals elaborate and resort to “folk theories” to manage their relationship with false information. Folk theories are “the set of beliefs, suppositions, simplifications, guesses, etc. through which people produced a generalized view of a certain phenomenon.” For example, one of the nine folk theories identified by researchers concerns the relationship to truth: “What is true or false is just a matter of perspective.” The complexity of public understandings of disinformation and misinformation, and the diversity of public responses to false information undermine the effectiveness of fact-checking systems.
- 8 Michel de Certeau, L’Invention du quotidien. Arts de faire (Paris, Gallimard, 1980).
7Nevertheless, fighting disinformation remains a priority for democracies. Fact-checking devices have to be questioned as one tool among others to challenge this issue. How have they evolved over the past years? In which ways has “fact-checking” become something like what Michel de Certeau called an “art de faire”8 or art of poaching, in many fields and sectors of society, such as media literacy initiatives, journalism curricula, and the public space?
8Rather than solely focusing on theoretical frameworks, this issue showcases empirical research that delves into the practical realities of fact-checking. Readers will find studies that trace the historical evolution of fact-checking as a journalistic endeavor, alongside explorations of contemporary vernacular fact-checking practices employed by everyday internet users on social media. We present research that examines the role of media literacy alongside fact-checking in combating disinformation, as well as analyses of the communication strategies used in fact-checking and their impact on diverse audiences.
9Moreover, the special issue reflects a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating insights from journalism, communication studies, social psychology, and ethnography. Methodologically, the articles employ historical analysis, interviews, case studies, and digital ethnography, providing a rich understanding of the field. Geographically, the research spans various national contexts, including the United States, France, Romania, and Spain, offering an overview of diverse fact-checking practices.
10This issue contributes to the growing body of scholarship on information disorder, offering critical insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike, grounding theoretical explorations in the tangible realities of contemporary fact-checking.
- 9 Joseph Beaudreau, “The Political Economy of Fact-Checking: From Hope to Reality Check,” in Disinfor (...)
11Importantly, as this issue comes to publication, the fact-checking landscape is undergoing significant shifts. These developments underscore the timeliness and importance of this issue, reinforcing the urgent need to examine the role of fact-checking as a vital response to the ongoing challenges of disinformation. The emergence of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) presents a potential paradigm shift, raising questions about the future of global fact-checking standards and the relationship between regional and international organizations, such as the IFCN.9
- 10 Monnier, Angeliki, Boursier, Axel and Seoane, Annabelle, eds, Cyberhate in the context of Migration (...)
- 11 Mantzarlis, Alexios. “Will the EU’s Disinformation Rules Matter?” Faked Up, February 19, 2025. http (...)
12At the same time, the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), enacted to regulate online platforms’ handling of misinformation, hate speech,10 and other systemic online risks, has recently integrated the voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation. This code outlines commitments for platforms to demonetize disinformation, reduce its viral spread, and facilitate user access to fact-checking resources. However, in a recent article, Alexios Mantzarlis, former director of the IFCN, notes skepticism from scholars and practitioners about the effectiveness of these new regulations.11 Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (University of Oxford) acknowledges the code’s potential benefits but emphasizes risks associated with centralizing enforcement under the European Commission, highlighting concerns about politicization. Alexandre Alaphilippe (EU DisinfoLab) similarly raises doubts about platforms’ willingness to genuinely fulfill commitments, citing historical superficial compliance. Mariateresa Maggiolino (Università Bocconi) further argues that platforms might engage in compliance efforts “for show,” without substantive transparency or accountability. Meanwhile, Clara Jiménez Cruz (Maldita.es) offers a cautiously optimistic view, recognizing the unprecedented clarity provided by the DSA’s explicit standards for fact-checking but suggesting that its real-world impact remains uncertain. Daphne Keller (Stanford’s Program on Platform Regulation) expresses skepticism that the code will lead to significant advances in user-driven solutions or fact-checking mechanisms. Collectively, these expert insights highlight both opportunities and critical limitations of the DSA, underscoring the urgent need for further scholarly engagement with emerging regulatory challenges.
- 12 Rachel Leingang, “Meta’s Factchecking Partners Brace for Layoffs,” The Guardian, January 8, 2025, s (...)
- 13 Cerulus, Laurens. “Vance’s Week of Waging War on EU Tech Law.” POLITICO, February 15, 2025. https:/ (...)
13Crucially, these regulatory and industry shifts are unfolding within a broader geopolitical context, where fact-checking itself has become a contested terrain. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in 2025 has intensified political hostility toward fact-checking, with his administration explicitly framing fact-checkers as partisan actors. Furthermore, in January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg’s very public announcement to terminate Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program in the United States has sent shockwaves through the community, raising critical concerns about the sustainability of fact-checking initiatives worldwide and the future of Meta’s support for organizations outside of the United States.12 This decision can be seen, in part, as a strategic response to these political pressures, exacerbating uncertainties about fact-checking’s future globally. Concurrently, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance intensified these tensions during his February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, explicitly accusing EU regulatory bodies of employing “Soviet-era” language to legitimize censorship and control digital discourse.13 Such rhetoric underscores how fact-checking has transcended traditional journalistic boundaries, becoming an explicit site of geopolitical contestation where competing narratives about regulation, free speech, and democracy collide.
14Recognizing that fact-checking is increasingly embedded within broader societal, technological, and political transformations, this special issue brings together a variety of analytical perspectives and methodological approaches to address the complex landscape of information disorder. While the historical foundations and contemporary practices of fact-checking are extensively discussed by individual contributors, our intention here is to highlight overarching themes emerging from their collective work. Articles in this issue examine not only traditional journalistic practices but also the grassroots and vernacular approaches increasingly evident on social media. They critically assess the effectiveness and limits of current fact-checking strategies, probe the intersections between fact-checking and media literacy initiatives, and consider the implications of recent shifts in platform policies and funding structures. Ultimately, this collection aims to provide readers—researchers, journalists, educators, policymakers, and informed citizens—with a deeper understanding of fact-checking’s complex role within contemporary democracies, offering insights into both its potential and its challenges in the ongoing struggle against disinformation.
15This issue opens with an article about the convergence of political fact-checking and debunking methodologies post-2016. Joseph Beaudreau expands on the historical roots of fact-checking as a journalistic reform movement in the United States and examines the process of field configuration. The rise of the “fake news” crisis of 2016 elevated and promoted the practice of fact-checking globally through the partnership with Facebook and later other social networks.
16The article by Divina Frau-Meigs, Nicoleta Corbu, and Sara Osuna Acedo presents the findings of a European-funded project, which stem from in-depth interviews with disinformation fighters, journalists, and policymakers in France, Romania, and Spain. While respondents in all countries see the enhancement of current practices in their national contexts as mandatory, all consider media literacy to be a key instrument in the future policies to fight disinformation.
17Angeliki Monnier and Céline Ségur propose to highlight the necessity, for theorists as well as practitioners, to consider fact-checking not only as a “false vs. true” verification mechanism, but as a communication process in and of itself. In other terms, they propose to reconsider fact-checking with an audience approach. Indeed, the challenges for fact-checking concern its capacity to be as visible and credible as false information can be.
18Discussions of fact-checking often center on the role of professional journalists. In contrast, Angèle Stalder and Gustavo Gomez-Mejia examine the “vernacular” fact-checking practices of everyday internet users, particularly those active on X (formerly Twitter). Their digital ethnographic work sheds light on how individuals navigate and assess information within online social networks, conducting their own investigations and critical evaluations.
- 14 Benjamin W. L. Derhy and Guillaume Guillaume, eds, Comprendre, discerner et réguler les fake news. (...)
19The need to fight disinformation has taken on a scale that seems unprecedented: the diversification of formats used by fake news (from false statements to deepfakes and doctored images), the power of virality observed on the Internet, the porosity of boundaries between reliable and unreliable sources, and so on. Fact-checking is essential in the Age of Information Disorder, not only from the journalistic profession, but also from the general public. But how can we ensure that debunking actions have more resonance in public debate than fake news itself? Is it preferable to over-publicize fake news so that the public learns to recognize it, or would it be better to stem the flow of fake news by ignoring it? At a time when legal regulations are coming up against tensions between regulatory imperatives and the democratic principles of freedom of expression,14 what innovative solutions are there to deal with the phenomenon? Fruitful scientific research is multiplying reflections, on a multi-disciplinary scale and alongside actors from civil society—automation of fact-checking, comprehensive approach to belief phenomena, media literacy, mapping of the virality of information, to name a few—with a common objective: to stimulate critical thinking as much as possible.