Fact-checking is built on transparency. We invite you to check our work.
Since fact-checkers present themselves as arbiters of truth, it's only fair that readers wonder if we're being, well, truthful.
So it's no surprise that "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?" is a common response to our work. The question is generally used as an attempted "gotcha," but it actually has a real and critically important answer.
It’s you. You should fact-check the fact-checkers.
Fact-checking – which we recognize Tuesday on International Fact-Checking Day – requires critical thinking, deep reporting, precise writing and an obsession with fairness. Most important, it requires transparency. Because no one should walk away from a story that declares something false feeling like they have to take our word for it.
Fact-checkers throughout the world present their findings in a variety of formats, languages and styles, but this is the thread that should unite us all. We will tell you not just what we found, but also where we found it. Not just what's true, but which interviews and documents made us confident in the rating we assigned.
As one colleague likes to say, we bring receipts.
Check our work, please
When you read a story from the Fact Check Team at USA TODAY, you’ll find text peppered with links. They will take you to the exact claim we’re fact-checking. To the background reading we did to make sure we examined the claim in the proper societal context. To the biographies of the experts we interviewed so you can see for yourself if they have the right credentials and are free from bias. To the studies or data or authoritative websites we relied on to sort fact from fiction.
And in case you miss any sourcing as you read, you’ll also find at the end of each story a source list, which includes the where, when and what of every source we relied on to determine the rating.
When fact-checkers dig into a claim, we’re not just looking for any expert who is willing to talk; we’re looking for the person who knows this topic better than anyone else. We’re looking for datasets with a sound methodology and depth to ensure no one is relying on cherry-picked or small-sample-size data. And we insist on primary sources rather than taking someone’s word for what a document or a law says.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
These are, admittedly, judgment calls, and that’s why we’re transparent about who we talked to and what we read – so you can check our work.
You'll find a similar approach from other reputable fact-checkers because this transparency is required of all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. Becoming a signatory (as about 175 organizations are around the world) requires a demonstrated commitment to using unbiased sources, relying on primary material, identifying multiple lines of evidence and including links to all of the above so readers can replicate our work.
Transparency is essential in our work
That transparency is how we seek to earn your trust. Even if you disagree with the final rating (fact-checkers also disagree on this sometimes), you can see how we got there and read thoroughly sourced background on the issue.
So please, click the links, background the experts, review the documents and crunch the numbers. I bet if you do, you’ll reach the same conclusion we did.
If you don’t, feel free to let us know. Because if we got it wrong, we'll be transparent about that, too.
Eric Litke leads the USA TODAY Fact Check Team and has worked in fact-checking since 2016.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Who fact checks the fact checkers? You do. That's why we show our work
