{"title":"2022年巴西决选期间的核实:事实核查组织如何揭露谎言并促进公众辩论的准确性","authors":"Regina Cazzamatta, Augusto Santos","doi":"10.1177/14648849231196080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study observes content-related indicators of the editorial decisions made by fact-checkers during the 2022 Brazilian run-off election. Specifically, it aims to investigate fact-checkers’ outputsregarding verification genres, scrutinized actors, types of verified falsehoods, and inspected platforms. The focus on Brazil stems from its reputation as a disinformation hub, owing to social polarization, populist communication, high social media use, low media trust, and intense WhatsApp penetration. Consequently, fact-checking agencies have proliferated within Brazil’s media landscape. To provide some hints about the fact-checkers’ editorial choices, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of verification articles ( n = 349) published during the second round of the presidential election by four leading fact-checking organizations: Lupa and Aos Fatos (independents), Estadão Verifica (press), and AFP Checamos (global news agency). The results reveal a prioritization of combating online falsehoods (82.2%) spread by anonymous sources, as opposed to verifying public figures’ statements (5.5%), a trend already observed in other media systems. Although Meta’s social networks and Twitter are primarily monitored, other platforms such as TikTok, Kwai, and Telegram are increasingly gaining fact-checkers’ attention. Fact-checkers predominantly scrutinized anonymous disinformation agents. Moreover, they primarily debunked falsehoods targeting the opposition, legacy media, social networking companies, and the Supreme Electoral Court. Despite the anonymity, 77.4% of the verified falsehoods were found to be beneficial to Bolsonaro, while 12% were advantageous to Lula da Silva.","PeriodicalId":74027,"journal":{"name":"Journalism (London, England)","volume":"184 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Checking verifications during the 2022 Brazilian run-off election: How fact-checking organizations exposed falsehoods and contributed to the accuracy of the public debate\",\"authors\":\"Regina Cazzamatta, Augusto Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14648849231196080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study observes content-related indicators of the editorial decisions made by fact-checkers during the 2022 Brazilian run-off election. Specifically, it aims to investigate fact-checkers’ outputsregarding verification genres, scrutinized actors, types of verified falsehoods, and inspected platforms. The focus on Brazil stems from its reputation as a disinformation hub, owing to social polarization, populist communication, high social media use, low media trust, and intense WhatsApp penetration. Consequently, fact-checking agencies have proliferated within Brazil’s media landscape. To provide some hints about the fact-checkers’ editorial choices, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of verification articles ( n = 349) published during the second round of the presidential election by four leading fact-checking organizations: Lupa and Aos Fatos (independents), Estadão Verifica (press), and AFP Checamos (global news agency). The results reveal a prioritization of combating online falsehoods (82.2%) spread by anonymous sources, as opposed to verifying public figures’ statements (5.5%), a trend already observed in other media systems. Although Meta’s social networks and Twitter are primarily monitored, other platforms such as TikTok, Kwai, and Telegram are increasingly gaining fact-checkers’ attention. Fact-checkers predominantly scrutinized anonymous disinformation agents. Moreover, they primarily debunked falsehoods targeting the opposition, legacy media, social networking companies, and the Supreme Electoral Court. Despite the anonymity, 77.4% of the verified falsehoods were found to be beneficial to Bolsonaro, while 12% were advantageous to Lula da Silva.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journalism (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"184 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journalism (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231196080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231196080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这项研究观察了2022年巴西决选期间事实检查员做出的编辑决定的内容相关指标。具体来说,它旨在调查事实核查员在核实类型、审查参与者、核实虚假信息类型和检查平台方面的产出。之所以关注巴西,是因为巴西因社会两极分化、民粹主义传播、社交媒体使用率高、媒体信任度低以及WhatsApp渗透率高而享有虚假信息中心的声誉。因此,事实核查机构在巴西媒体领域大量涌现。为了提供一些关于事实核查者编辑选择的线索,我们对四个主要的事实核查机构:Lupa和Aos Fatos(独立)、estad o Verifica(媒体)和AFP Checamos(全球通讯社)在总统选举第二轮期间发表的核查文章(n = 349)进行了定量内容分析。调查结果显示,与其他媒体系统中已经观察到的核实公众人物言论(5.5%)相比,打击匿名来源传播的网络虚假信息(82.2%)被列为优先事项。虽然Meta的社交网络和推特主要受到监控,但TikTok、Kwai和Telegram等其他平台正越来越多地获得事实核查者的关注。事实核查员主要审查匿名的虚假信息代理人。此外,他们主要揭露了针对反对派、传统媒体、社交网络公司和最高选举法院的虚假信息。尽管匿名,但经核实的谎言中77.4%有利于博尔索纳罗,12%有利于卢拉·达席尔瓦。
Checking verifications during the 2022 Brazilian run-off election: How fact-checking organizations exposed falsehoods and contributed to the accuracy of the public debate
This study observes content-related indicators of the editorial decisions made by fact-checkers during the 2022 Brazilian run-off election. Specifically, it aims to investigate fact-checkers’ outputsregarding verification genres, scrutinized actors, types of verified falsehoods, and inspected platforms. The focus on Brazil stems from its reputation as a disinformation hub, owing to social polarization, populist communication, high social media use, low media trust, and intense WhatsApp penetration. Consequently, fact-checking agencies have proliferated within Brazil’s media landscape. To provide some hints about the fact-checkers’ editorial choices, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of verification articles ( n = 349) published during the second round of the presidential election by four leading fact-checking organizations: Lupa and Aos Fatos (independents), Estadão Verifica (press), and AFP Checamos (global news agency). The results reveal a prioritization of combating online falsehoods (82.2%) spread by anonymous sources, as opposed to verifying public figures’ statements (5.5%), a trend already observed in other media systems. Although Meta’s social networks and Twitter are primarily monitored, other platforms such as TikTok, Kwai, and Telegram are increasingly gaining fact-checkers’ attention. Fact-checkers predominantly scrutinized anonymous disinformation agents. Moreover, they primarily debunked falsehoods targeting the opposition, legacy media, social networking companies, and the Supreme Electoral Court. Despite the anonymity, 77.4% of the verified falsehoods were found to be beneficial to Bolsonaro, while 12% were advantageous to Lula da Silva.