The Role of Fact-Checking in Political Argumentation

Abstract

This chapter focuses on three specific policy issue disputes in the media coverage of the election campaign to examine the role that fact-checking plays in informing debate. Applying methodological tools from political discourse analysis and argumentation theory, it finds that fact-checking is effective at resolving disputes over empirical claims, even where both are statistically defensible, by interpreting which is most contextually relevant. However, checking the empirical circumstances did not resolve political arguments over conflicting policy proposals, as claims for action to reach an agreed goal, which hinge on claims about causal relationships. On the most complex and controversial issues, fact-checkers often chose to check banal and uncontested statements, rather than assess the difficult but important evidence behind theoretical, predictive claims.