Hey Olasians!!
How’s everyone doing? I was just checking out Olas’ latest post on X when, by chance, I came across an interesting article about the limits of fact-checking (call it serendipity, if you will). The article basically argues that while fact-checking is essential for quality control in media and reducing the spread of fake news, it doesn’t always get the job done.
This is especially true when it comes to scientific facts. Fact-checkers aren’t scientists, and sometimes they overstate the consensus on issues like climate science or present a narrow view of the debate, making it seem like the science is “settled” when it might not be. The article has a point. One example I always talk about is related to climate science. We often read these doomsday scenarios about climate change (especially if you follow The Guardian, lol), but a lot of those are based on the RCP 8.5 scenario from the IPCC, which is the most extreme. Other scenarios are much milder and more likely, considering how quickly we’re decarbonizing. If you check out Roger Pielke’s newsletter (really interesting guy, highly recommend), he breaks down this bias pretty well.
Back to the article—fact-checking is definitely a key tool for media literacy, keeping politicians in check and cleaning up the journalistic record. But it’s clearly limited when it comes to explaining complex issues where there isn’t settled consensus and multiple perspectives are in play. In these cases, instead of straight-up fact-checking, it might be better to present the full debate and why some people disagree with the “official” view. I wonder if Olas has any thoughts or solutions on this. It would be amazing to have a platform that not only fact-checks politicians and journalists but also highlights ongoing debates on controversial topics, instead of reducing everything to “true” or “false.” That’s what we info-seekers really want, right?