Media |Analysis

Fake news is ‘journalistic warfare’ says New Yorker’s chief fact-checker

This story is part of a series on fact checking by WikiTribune reporter Harry Ridgewell: others are on the rise of fact-checking in response to the “fake news” debate, a guide to fact-checking groups, plus how to spot fake images and news. Please add to or TALK about them.

A widespread “disenchantment” with modern life has fueled the rise of fake news, as mass misinformation has been weaponized into “journalistic warfare,” according to a man who has devoted his career to the pursuit of robust journalism.

Peter Canby is a senior editor and head of fact-checking at The New Yorker magazine, a publication renowned for its rigorous fact-checking processes (Columbia Journalism Review). He spoke to WikiTribune about public cynicism of the media, “crazy fake news outlets” and outrage over penguins.

“People are disenchanted with the way their lives have evolved [and] … there is an education system in this country that’s not what it used to be,” says Canby. “If you have an educated, literate population, my guess is they’re going to gravitate to more sensible debates and when you lose that, then you have the problems that arise from fake news.”

He believes the media now needs reporters who can write in a way that resonates with everyone. “My feeling is that there are a lot of people who feel in this country … that their lives have gotten worse,” says Canby. “We, as a nation, need to create a dialogue that allows people to feel involved in ways that make their lives better.”

Disappointment feeds disenchantment

Many Americans may be looking for ways to explain why their lives seem to have become more difficult over recent decades. Between 1973 and 2013, American productivity rose by about 74 percent, but for 80 percent of the private-sector workforce, hourly wages only increased 8.2 percent, according to U.S. think tank the Economic Policy Institute.

Canby believes many Americans have turned away from traditional media establishments because they feel they no longer represent their lives. “They turn against the conventional politics and they reach out for something – like Trump.”

Facebook is now a source of news for 45 percent of Americans, according to 2017 research by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan U.S. think tank. The social media site has recently been the object of intense criticism for its role in the distribution of fake news, including Russian-funded misinformation designed to influence U.S. politics.

‘It’s journalistic warfare’ – Peter Canby, The New Yorker

“I don’t mean just by the Russians, but the Russians have done very well at exploiting our own somewhat crazy fake news outlets … and there is the degree to which the Russians have been feeding toxic stories into our system, which are then amplified intentionally,” says Canby. “It’s journalistic warfare,” he says. “[It’s] a source of conflict between those who see journalism as evidence- and logic-based, and those who see it as a means of manipulation.”

Even if Facebook and Google find and implement ways of preventing the dissemination of misinformation, Canby says people will find new ways to get round them. However, he does think that “ultimately, better ideas tend to prevail.”

peter canby a senior editor and the head of fact-checking at The New Yorker
Peter Canby – a senior editor and the head of fact-checking at The New Yorker (Copyright owned by Peter Canby)

The New Yorker is famous for its fact-checking prowess. Canby’s staff aims to speak to every person mentioned in a story, even if they’re not quoted. For Luke Mogelson’s The Desperate Battle to Destroy ISIS, for example, fact-checkers called all 42 people mentioned within the 17,000-word piece.

Their process goes far beyond checking names and dates, Canby says. “We also look at the way stories are reported. We look at fairness. We look at balance. We look at the relationship of information to where it came from and the way an argument we have is represented [appears] to the outside world. Those are more complicated editorial takes on the fact-checking process.”

Despite automation being the new fashion in fact-checking, Canby doesn’t think automation can achieve all of these things.

Yet Canby says it is far quicker to fact-check than it used to be, despite increasing amounts of online misinformation (academic study). “Now, we have things that we turn around in four or five days that, when I started, we would have probably spent a month on,” he says.

Objectivity and neutrality

Speaking multiple languages is very useful for fact-checkers, Canby says, and his department is fluent in a total of eight or nine languages. Canby says while “we’re perfectly capable of hiring a translator … [speaking multiple languages] represents an ability to see the world through different lenses,” which is helpful for remaining objective and neutral.

Though the internet is an efficient tool for verification, Canby says it is no substitute for asking the source of a claim exactly where they got their information.

Despite The New Yorker’s rigorous checks, the magazine is not immune to mistakes. One cartoon seemingly depicting a penguin telling a girlfriend’s parents that “actually I prefer the term Arctic-American,” drew scorn, Canby says.

“We got outraged letters from penguin specialists around the world pointing out that penguins only live in Antarctica, not in the Arctic.”

Yet Canby thinks it’s important that publications also include humor, saying: “I think if you corner people that they tend to dig their heels in, and if you seduce them with humor and cartoons the way we do, then it becomes something more: a palatable package.”

This story is part of a series on fact-checking by WikiTribune reporter Harry Ridgewell: others are on the rise of fact checking in response to the “fake news” debate, a guide to fact-checking groups, plus how to spot fake images and news. Please add to or TALK about them.

We have no ads and no paywall. If you believe in collaboration to produce quality neutral journalism for everyone, it is important that you sign up to support our work financially. Every penny goes towards improving WikiTribune!
Thanks, Jimmy Wales

Support us

Talk (8)

LK

Larry Kontosh

"One aspect I think maybe driving fake..."
Peter Bale

Peter Bale

"Story is published now. In our case w..."
Peter Bale

Peter Bale

"We've published it just now."
Harry Ridgewell

Harry Ridgewell

"Apologies about being a month late to..."

Sources & References

References

Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge. Bivens, J., Gould, E., Mishel, L. and Shierholz, H. (2014). Economic Policy Institute.

Fact-checking at The New Yorker. Canby, P. (2012). Columbia Journalism Review.

News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017. Shearer, E. and Gottfried, J. (2017). Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project.

The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. Vargo, C., Guo, L. and Amazeen, M. (2017). New Media & Society. p.146144481771208. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817712086


Author

United Kingdom
Harry is a masters graduand from Cardiff University, with a diploma in Magazine Journalism. He has an interest in politics and science, having previously studied Geography at Aberystwyth University. Follow Harry on Twitter @harryridgewell

History for Story "Fake news is ‘journalistic warfare’ says New Yorker’s chief fact-checker"

Select two items to compare revisions

  1. Time Contributor Edit
  2. Rv Robin van Boven (Contributions | Talk) Remove empty highlights
  3. JD Jodie DeJonge (Contributions | Talk) accepts revisions except 'think tank,' per AP style
  4. CT Clive Tabraham (Contributions | Talk) edits
  5. BH Britt Hackemack (Contributions | Talk) AP style c/e, update comma
  6. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edit
  7. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) updated
  8. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) added references
  9. Peter Bale Peter Bale (Contributions | Talk) Adding links to the rest of the series
  10. Ed Upright Ed Upright (Contributions | Talk) Removed passive, added italics
  11. Peter Bale Peter Bale (Contributions | Talk) Publishing for package
  12. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) incorporating peter's edits
  13. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) added picture
  14. Peter Bale Peter Bale (Contributions | Talk) Nearly there. Closing for Harry to add image
  15. Peter Bale Peter Bale (Contributions | Talk) Incorporating Harry amendments
  16. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edit
  17. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edits
  18. Ed Upright Ed Upright (Contributions | Talk)
  19. Ed Upright Ed Upright (Contributions | Talk) Editing
  20. Ed Upright Ed Upright (Contributions | Talk)
  21. Ed Upright Ed Upright (Contributions | Talk) Edit
  22. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) changed word
  23. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edit
  24. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) added more quotes
  25. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) improved
  26. Charles Anderson Charles Anderson (Contributions | Talk) clean up
  27. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) changed standfirst
  28. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) fixing formatting
  29. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) fixed formatting
  30. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) changed category
  31. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) pending
  32. Jemima Kiss Jemima Kiss (Contributions | Talk) Minor edits
  33. Jemima Kiss Jemima Kiss (Contributions | Talk) Fine edits
  34. SB Steve Beatty (Contributions | Talk) Remove errant, random boldface
  35. Charles Anderson Charles Anderson (Contributions | Talk) small edit
  36. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edit
  37. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) bolding to show changes
  38. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) removed weird formatting
  39. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) update
  40. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) improved
  41. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) improvements not finished
  42. Jemima Kiss Jemima Kiss (Contributions | Talk)
  43. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) minor edit
  44. Harry Ridgewell Harry Ridgewell (Contributions | Talk) first draft

Talk for Story "Fake news is ‘journalistic warfare’ says New Yorker’s chief fact-checker"

Talk about this Story

  1. One aspect I think maybe driving fake news is the need for broadcast journalism to garner ratings. “Breaking news as we go on the air…, live from the latest …” are examples of efforts to attract viewers vs. traditional reporting. As long as news shows have to compete with each other they have to out do their competition to stay on the air.

  2. Typo with then instead of than… “quicker to fact check then it used to be”. Also, I thought this story was published before, but it seems to just be a draft now. Not sure if that was intentional.

    1. Apologies about being a month late to reply but thank you Gareth. Have changed now

  3. “Canby’s staff aim to speak to every person mentioned in a story, even if they’re not quoted. ” sounds like solid fact checking.

    Perhaps WikiTribune also does this?

    1. Story is published now. In our case we are hoping the community will help us do some of the verification, certainly on attribution and references. The New Yorker is the gold standard on traditional fact-checking methods.

    2. Sounds like something that’s nice to aim for, but I’m sure many will be difficult to contact. At least the platform should make it easier for the authors to get input from specific individuals and a large group. Sending the draft to people involved and asking for any input seems like it could be very beneficial. Maybe something worth streamlining a process for?

  4. What about stories that take quotes out of context and misguide readers by leaving out key points or only focusing on certain statistics without any mention of glaring holes in them. I think this is a big issue in the news and I’m not sure if the fact checking necessarily takes care of these issues. I’m sure some fact checkers do more than others, but some may let statements that are technically true slip through

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news, alerts and updates

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu RSS Feed Share on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later