Tegna Dissolves National Fact-Checking Unit, Verify, Amidst Growing Scrutiny of Fact-Checking Initiatives
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Tegna, a prominent media company, has recently dismantled its national fact-checking project, Verify, resulting in the layoff of approximately 18 journalists, producers, researchers, and other staff members. Launched in 2015 at the local station level and expanded nationally in 2021, Verify aimed to combat the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation across the media landscape. The company’s decision marks a significant shift in its approach to fact-checking, raising questions about the future of such initiatives within the broader media ecosystem. Tegna has indicated that future fact-checking efforts will be decentralized and handled by individual local stations, leaving the national effort dormant.
The closure of Verify coincides with mounting criticism and scrutiny of fact-checking organizations, particularly from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr. Carr has voiced concerns about potential bias in fact-checking practices and has publicly questioned the role of such initiatives in the media landscape. This scrutiny has raised broader questions about the balance between combating misinformation and protecting freedom of speech, igniting a complex debate about the authority and responsibility of fact-checking bodies. The FCC is currently investigating complaints regarding alleged bias at three local stations, including one concerning the real-time fact-checking of the 2020 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Tegna’s official statement, published on its website, emphasizes the company’s commitment to serving local communities and providing accurate information. It directs audiences to their local Tegna stations and digital platforms for ongoing news and information, including future fact-checking efforts. The statement suggests a strategic refocus on localized news delivery, potentially influenced by the ongoing debate surrounding the efficacy and neutrality of national fact-checking initiatives. However, the company has not provided further details or responded to inquiries regarding the specific reasons behind Verify’s shutdown, leaving many questions unanswered.
Carr’s recent statements have further fueled the debate surrounding fact-checking. In a December 2nd interview with NewsNation, he suggested the FCC might expand its oversight to include fact-checking efforts as part of a broader campaign against what he terms a “censorship cartel.” He expressed skepticism about the distinction between misinformation and disinformation, suggesting that these labels are often applied subjectively to suppress opposing viewpoints. Carr’s remarks reflect a growing concern among some that fact-checking organizations may inadvertently stifle free speech by applying their own biases when evaluating information. He advocates for stronger protections of political, religious, and scientific speech, arguing against excessive regulation or oversight of these areas.
Carr’s specific targeting of NewsGuard, a fact-checking and media literacy organization, further exemplifies his stance. He has accused NewsGuard of being a prominent player in this perceived “censorship cartel,” raising concerns about their practices and influence. This direct criticism of a specific organization underscores the escalating tension surrounding the role and legitimacy of fact-checking entities in the current media landscape. The clashing perspectives represent a significant challenge to the future of fact-checking, particularly in a context of increasing political polarization and rampant misinformation online.
The dismantling of Verify and the intensifying scrutiny of fact-checking organizations signal a potentially significant shift in the media landscape. The debate raises fundamental questions about the balance between combating misinformation and safeguarding freedom of speech. As Carr’s investigations and pronouncements continue, the future of fact-checking initiatives remains uncertain, prompting further discussion about their role, methodology, and potential impact on public discourse. The outcome of these discussions will likely shape the way information is evaluated and disseminated in the digital age, with implications for both media organizations and the public’s access to reliable news. The inherent tension between combating misinformation and protecting freedom of expression will continue to be a central point of contention in the evolving media landscape.
