Fact-checking as a quasi-media institution: Thematic and argumentative analysis of demagog publications in the 2023 election year
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15633/sce.01403Keywords:
misinformation, disinformation journalism, Internet, politicsAbstract
The article examines fact-checking organizations as quasi-media institutions, focusing on the activities of the Demagog portal during the 2023 election year. Based on 599 cases of fake news, a content analysis was conducted to determine the topics of disinformation and the argumentative strategies used in corrections. The results indicate that the most frequently debunked content concerned health-related issues, and the dominant argumentative technique was original investigation using OSINT tools. At the same time, risks were noted related to referencing institutional sources or rejecting claims due to a lack of evidence, which may reinforce the confirmation and backfire effects. The analysis confirms the significance of fact-checking as a tool of editorial intervention in the public discourse.
References
Berinsky, A. J. (2023). Political Rumours. Why We Accept Misinformation and How to Fight It. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691247571
Card, D., Lin, L. H., & Smith, N. A. (2018). Politifact Language Audit. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~nasmith/papers/card+lin+smith.tr18.pdf
Colicchio, T. (2023). Bias in Fact Checking? An Analysis of Partisan Trends Using PolitiFact Data (Honors thesis), Duke University. https://hdl.handle.net/10161/29011
Das, A., Mehta, R., & Lease, M. (2019). CobWeb: A research prototype for exploring user bias in political fact-checking. arXiv,1907.03718. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.03718
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and Public Reason. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113820
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271
Mayer, R. (2018). The grim conclusions of the largest-ever study of fake news. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/largest-study-ever-fake-news-mit-twitter/555104/
Ostermeier, E. (2011). Selection Bias? PoltiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at Three Times the Rate of Democrats. Smart Politics, 10.02.
Park, S., Park, J. Y., Kang, J.-h., & Cha, M. (2021). The presence of unexpected biases in online fact-checking. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-53
Poynter Institute. (n.d.). IFCN code of principles: The commitments, https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/the-commitments
Poynter Institute. (n.d.). International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/about-ifcn.
Soprano, M., Roitero, K., La Barbera, D., Ceolin, D., Spina, D., Demartini, G., & Mizzaro, S. (2024). Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review. Information Processing & Management, 61(3), 103672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
Stowarzyszenie Demagog. (n.d.). Demagog. https://demagog.org.pl
Tejedor, S., Romero-Rodríguez, L. M., & Gracia-Villar, M. (2024). Unveiling the truth: A systematic review of fact-checking and fake news research in social sciences. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(2), e202427. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14455
Uscinski, J. E. (2015). The Epistemology of Fact Checking (Is Still Naìve): Rejoinder to Amazeen. Critical Review, 27(2), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2015.1055892
Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. (2018). Science Denial across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Klaudia Rosińska (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights without restrictions and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
