skip to main content


Title: ‘Highly Partisan’ and ‘Blatantly Wrong’: Analyzing News Publishers’ Critiques of Google’s Reviewed Claims
Google’s reviewed claims feature was an early attempt to incorporate additional credibility signals from fact-checking onto the search results page. The feature, which appeared when users searched for the name of a subset of news publishers, was criticized by dozens of publishers for its errors and alleged anticonservative bias. By conducting an audit of news publisher search results and focusing on the critiques of publishers, we find that there is a lack of consensus between fact-checking ecosystem stakeholders that may be important to address in future iterations of public facing fact-checking tools. In particular, we find that a lack of transparency coupled with a lack of consensus on what makes a fact-check relevant to a news article led to the breakdown of reviewed claims.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1751087
NSF-PAR ID:
10278902
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Editor(s):
De Cristofaro, Emiliano; Nakov, Preslav
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 2020 Truth and Trust Online Conference (TTO 2020)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
64-72
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. With the spread of the SARS-CoV-2, enormous amounts of information about the pandemic are disseminated through social media platforms such as Twitter. Social media posts often leverage the trust readers have in prestigious news agencies and cite news articles as a way of gaining credibility. Nevertheless, it is not always the case that the cited article supports the claim made in the social media post. We present a cross-genre ad hoc pipeline to identify whether the information in a Twitter post (i.e., a “Tweet”) is indeed supported by the cited news article. Our approach is empirically based on a corpus of over 46.86 million Tweets and is divided into two tasks: (i) development of models to detect Tweets containing claim and worth to be fact-checked and (ii) verifying whether the claims made in a Tweet are supported by the newswire article it cites. Unlike previous studies that detect unsubstantiated information by post hoc analysis of the patterns of propagation, we seek to identify reliable support (or the lack of it) before the misinformation begins to spread. We discover that nearly half of the Tweets (43.4%) are not factual and hence not worth checking – a significant filter, given the sheer volume of social media posts on a platform such as Twitter. Moreover, we find that among the Tweets that contain a seemingly factual claim while citing a news article as supporting evidence, at least 1% are not actually supported by the cited news, and are hence misleading. 
    more » « less
  2. Knowledge graph has been widely used in fact checking, owing to its capability to provide crucial background knowledge to help verify claims. Traditional fact checking works mainly focus on analyzing a single claim but have largely ignored analysis on the semantic consistency of pair-wise claims, despite its key importance in the real-world applications, e.g., multimodal fake news detection. This paper proposes a graph neural network based model INSPECTOR for pair-wise fact checking. Given a pair of claims, INSPECTOR aims to detect the potential semantic inconsistency of the input claims. The main idea of INSPECTOR is to use a graph attention neural network to learn a graph embedding for each claim in the pair, then use a tensor neural network to classify this pair of claims as consistent vs. inconsistent. The experiment results show that our algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art methods, with a higher accuracy and a lower variance. 
    more » « less
  3. Most existing methods for automatic fact-checking start with a precompiled list of claims to verify. We investigate the understudied problem of determining what statements in news articles are worthy to fact-check. We annotate the argument structure of 95 news articles in the climate change domain that are fact-checked by climate scientists at climatefeedback.org. We release the first multi-layer annotated corpus for both argumentative discourse structure (argument types and relations) and for fact-checked statements in news articles. We discuss the connection between argument structure and check-worthy statements and develop several baseline models for detecting check-worthy statements in the climate change domain. Our preliminary results show that using information about argumentative discourse structure shows slight but statistically significant improvement over a baseline of local discourse structure. 
    more » « less
  4. Feldman, Anna ; Da San Martino, Giovanni ; Leberknight, Chris ; Nakov, Preslav (Ed.)
    The explosion of online health news articles runs the risk of the proliferation of low-quality information. Within the existing work on fact-checking, however, relatively little attention has been paid to medical news. We present a health news classification task to determine whether medical news articles satisfy a set of review criteria deemed important by medical experts and health care journalists. We present a dataset of 1,119 health news paired with systematic reviews. The review criteria consist of six elements that are essential to the accuracy of medical news. We then present experiments comparing the classical token-based approach with the more recent transformer-based models. Our results show that detecting qualitative lapses is a challenging task with direct ramifications in misinformation, but is an important direction to pursue beyond assigning True or False labels to short claims. 
    more » « less
  5. When one searches for political candidates on Google, a panel composed of recent news stories, known as Top stories, is commonly shown at the top of the search results page. These stories are selected by an algorithm that chooses from hundreds of thousands of articles published by thousands of news publishers. In our previous work, we identified 56 news sources that contributed 2/3 of all Top stories for 30 political candidates running in the primaries of 2020 US Presidential Election. In this paper, we survey US voters to elicit their familiarity and trust with these 56 news outlets. We find that some of the most frequent outlets are not familiar to all voters (e.g. The Hill or Politico), or particularly trusted by voters of any political stripes (e.g. Washington Examiner or The Daily Beast). Why then, are such sources shown so frequently in Top stories? We theorize that Google is sampling news articles from sources with different political leanings to offer a balanced coverage. This is reminiscent of the so-called “fairness doctrine” (1949-1987) policy in the United States that required broadcasters (radio or TV stations) to air contrasting views about controversial matters. Because there are fewer right-leaning publications than center or left-leaning ones, in order to maintain this “fair” balance, hyper-partisan far-right news sources of low trust receive more visibility than some news sources that are more familiar to and trusted by the public. 
    more » « less