During a campaign debate, Donald Trump sparked outrage by falsely claiming that people in Springfield ate pets. Fact-checking revealed this to be fabricated, as the local administration confirmed no such incidents occurred. Trump’s accusations are seen as examples of modern disinformation. The emergence of fact-checking platforms like PolitiFact has become crucial in combating misinformation, especially during elections, while public trust in media continues to decline amid allegations of bias against fact-checkers.
“In Springfield, dogs are eaten. People who come here eat cats. They consume the pets of those who live there. And that’s what’s happening in our country. It’s a disgrace.” – With this infamous falsehood, Donald Trump sparked outrage during a campaign debate leading up to the current US elections.
It quickly became evident that the accusation was fabricated. ABC News investigated the claim by reaching out to the Springfield, Ohio city administration, which officially confirmed that there were no reports of such incidents.
While there was an isolated case in Canton, Ohio, where a woman was accused of brutally killing her cat and subsequently charged with animal cruelty, Trump’s allegation that migrants eat pets was a deliberate piece of disinformation.
Many consider Donald Trump a prime example of modern disinformation, frequently crossing the line between exaggeration and outright falsehoods, making him a seemingly endless source of half-truths.
The Rise of Fact-Checkers
As fake news has proliferated, fact-checking has become an integral part of political discourse in the USA. Organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org were established to reveal false statements and disinformation. This role is particularly vital during election seasons, as political figures like Trump deploy falsehoods to advance their own agendas and undermine faith in established media.
Previously, the term “fake news” was mainly used in satirical programs such as the “Colbert Report” to humorously address misinformation. However, during the 2016 presidential campaign, this term transformed into a political weapon.
Trump strategically employed the term “fake news” to label critical coverage as “false” or “biased,” leading to significant erosion of trust in the media and increasing societal polarization that continues today.
“Alternative Facts” and the Crisis of Truth
A turning point in the discussion of truth versus falsehood occurred when Trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway introduced the term “alternative facts” in January 2017. She defended misleading claims made by the White House regarding attendance numbers at Trump’s inauguration by referring to them as “alternative facts.”
This term symbolizes a new strategy of communication: distorting or ignoring the truth to create an alternate reality that serves specific political aims.
Fact-Checking in Journalism
With the rise of the internet and social media, the role of fact-checkers has grown increasingly significant. Lucas Graves, a journalism and mass communication professor at the University of Wisconsin, discusses this shift.
“The first professional fact-checker was FactCheck.org, established in 2003.” Platforms such as Snopes, originally created to verify rumors and urban legends, have gradually focused more on scrutinizing political statements.
Today, platforms like PolitiFact and the “Washington Post Fact Checker” are key players in the fight against disinformation. The “New York Times” plays a critical role, especially during US elections. Its fact-checking team, comprised of around 30 members, evaluates politicians’ statements in real time, both in speeches and on social media. These evaluations are rated on a scale from “true” to “false” and are explained in detail.
A notable example of the “New York Times” fact-checking efforts is its investigation of Trump’s claims regarding funding for the border wall with Mexico. Trump repeatedly asserted that Mexico would pay for the wall’s construction.
However, the newspaper disproved this assertion, demonstrating that Trump’s plans were based on erroneous assumptions. Such rigorous and often live fact-checking has positioned the “New York Times” as a central authority in evaluating political statements.
Fact-Checking in Switzerland
Fact-checking is also gaining prominence in Switzerland. SRF has embraced this trend by regularly conducting fact-checks to verify the accuracy of political claims and media reports. A recent example pertains to the assessment of statements regarding the effects of the Covid-19 vaccination.
Numerous claims circulating on social media were debunked through SRF fact-checks, utilizing expert input and scientific studies. This illustrates that even in Switzerland, the battle against disinformation plays a vital role in public discourse.
Who Verifies the Fact-Checkers?
Despite their importance, fact-checkers are not free from criticism. Skeptics argue that they can exhibit political bias. This is particularly problematic in a polarized environment like the USA, where neutrality is difficult to maintain.
The book “Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers” criticizes the fact-checking industry as having become a tool for the political left. This perspective reflects the growing distrust in supposedly neutral entities, especially within highly polarized