AOC Asked Mark Zuckerberg About Facebook’s Fact-Checking Process. He Didn’t Give Her the Whole Truth.

His answer about the Daily Caller’s involvement was misleading, at best.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

During his congressional testimony on Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg tried to side-step responsibility for partnering with the conservative media site, the Daily Caller, giving an at-best misleading answer to a pretty direct question from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Ocasio-Cortez asked Zuckerberg why Facebook partnered with ā€œthe Daily Caller, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook.ā€ Her question refers to the organizationā€™s history of employing people like Scott Greer, a deputy editor who had previously written for a white supremacist publication, and of running articles from prominent white supremacists like Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow.

ā€œWe actually donā€™t appoint the independent fact-checkers,” Zuckerberg responded. “They go through an independent organization called the Independent Fact-Checking Network, that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.”

“So you would say that white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking?” she asked skeptically.

Zuckerberg again dodged, once more deferring to the outside organization.

While the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a unit of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, does make determinations as to who makes it into the pool of Facebook’s fact-checkers, the platform makes its own choices about which IFCN organizations actually get to fact-check the articles sharedā€”a detail  Zuckerberg conveniently left out.*

Voxā€™s Aaron Rupar explained the Facebook fact-checking process back in May:

All the fact-checkers Facebook partners with are certified by Poynterā€™s International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Poynter evaluates applicants based on a set of criteria including ā€œnonpartisanship and fairness,ā€ ā€œtransparency of sources,ā€ ā€œtransparency of funding and organization,ā€ ā€œtransparency of methodology,ā€ and an ā€œopen an honest corrections policy.ā€

IFCN certification is a necessary condition for partnering with Facebook, but once a site is certified, itā€™s up to Facebook to decide whether to partner with it. There are currently 62 organizations with IFCN certification globally, but Facebook only partners with six in the United States.

Whatā€™s particularly interesting about Zuckerberg neglecting to mention Facebookā€™s responsibility here is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg was directly involved in discussions with Facebook vice president and former George W. Bush staffer Joel Kaplan about whether or not to include the Daily Caller:

This summer, Mr. Kaplan pushed to partner with right-wing news site The Daily Callerā€™s fact-checking division after conservatives accused Facebook of working only with mainstream publishers, people familiar with the discussions said. Conservative critics argued those publications had a built-in liberal bias.

Mr. Kaplan argued that The Daily Caller was accredited by the Poynter Institute, a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based journalism nonprofit that oversees a network of fact-checkers. Other executives, including some in the Washington, D.C. office, argued that the publication printed misinformation. The contentious discussion involved Mr. Zuckerberg, who appeared to side with Mr. Kaplan, and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. The debate ended in November when The Daily Callerā€™s fact-checking operation lost its accreditation.

So yes, Facebook doesn’t accredit its fact-checkers, but, as Zuckerberg knows, it does pick them.

Correction: The original version of this article misstated the IFCN’s name.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate