How fact-checkers delimit their scope of practices and use sources: Comparing professional and partisan practitioners

Fact-checkers, as their names suggest, are supposedly agents who check the validity of “facts.” But in reality, how do fact-checkers delimit the scope of their practices? What sources do they use to establish the truth and falsity of the examined materials? Do the practices of different types of fact-checkers vary in these aspects? This study examines how professional and partisan fact-checkers deal with facticity during a protest movement in Hong Kong. The content analysis shows that partisan fact-checkers, when compared to professional fact-checkers, are less likely to restrict themselves to debunking factual claims, and they are more likely to provide no source information for the materials used. Posts addressing “misleading claims,” as opposed to factual claims, are where partisan inclinations are more clearly exhibited. Moreover, partisan fact-checkers used government information in ways consistent with their political predilection. Implications of the findings on our understanding of the fact-checking enterprise are discussed.