Facebook on Aug. 11 issued a new policy to its third-party fact-checking partners around the world, stating that if opinions in articles labeled as editorials or op-eds by the media are based on false information, they should still be given a fact-check rating.
The policy is unlikely to have any impact on people not working in the news media. People in general know little about the difference between news reports and opinion pieces, let alone the difference between different types of opinion pieces such as columns, op-eds and editorials.
After being accused of acting like a “fake news platform” by US media during the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook has started to cooperate with fact-checking organizations in many countries to prevent the spread of false information.
However, opinion pieces were not included in the fact-checking because they are the free expression of personal opinion.
However, as “misinformation warfare” is becoming more organized, opinion pieces have deteriorated, as some politicians and their allies publish op-eds based on false information.
On the one hand, they are using the news media as endorsers, and on the other, they avoid being fact-checked.
For readers and social media users, one of the criteria when judging whether an article contains misinformation is to look at the source.
If the source is a credible news outlet in their eyes, they do not doubt its truthfulness. Fact-checking centers are helpless against this, so Facebook is now trying to close this loophole.
Still, it reminds its partners to only give a fact-check rating to opinion pieces when they are based on false information.
Opinion pieces have always been a section that the US newspapers use to express their stance and to allow a diversity of opinion. Editorials express a newspaper’s stance, op-eds express a diversity of opinion and invited columnists express both.
As a result, conservative pieces can still be seen in liberal newspapers, and vice versa. With the promotion of opinion diversity, ideological confrontation takes place in the form of debate, instead of violence.
Unfortunately, social media have changed the news industry environment, as catering to readers ideologically to survive has become a trend and going against this trend shields other ideologies. As a result, ideologies have become internalized in organizational operations and news production of the news media and their journalists, while neutrality has been downgraded from a “value” to an “option.”
The resignations this summer of James Bennet, a former editorial page editor at the New York Times, and that of Bari Weiss, a former op-ed editor and writer at the paper, are two examples.
On the surface, Bennet was pressured by colleagues to resign for protecting the space for conservative voices, and the direct cause of the resignation was the publication in the Times of an op-ed by conservative US Senator Tom Cotton, titled “Send in the Troops,” which urged the US federal government to send in troops to crack down nationwide protests.
Surprisingly for such a high-profile article, Bennet did not even check it personally before publication.
Judging by the Bennet case, when journalists internalize ideology, making it a part of organizational operations and the news production process, they become less vigilant on opinion pieces that cater to specific ideologies.
Although Facebook’s adjustment of its fact-checking mechanism might not affect readers and users, it serves as a warning to the news media.
Chang Yueh-han is an assistant professor in Shih Hsin University’s department of journalism.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had