In mid-July 2020, a flyer similar to official publications of the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) appeared. It claimed, among other warnings on a red background, that wearing masks is promoting the transmission of Covid-19 by the multiplication of bacteria and viruses in the lungs (e.g., Büchi in Tages-Anzeiger, 14 July 2020). This example shows that wrong or false information, called “fake news” or disinformation to the public, has also become a problem for leading media organisations and their media creators since the advent of social media.
In winter of 2019 to 2020, the Association of Swiss Media VSM launched an information campaign in the newspapers of its members, with the big red title “Fake News? Not in the Swiss press.” The reasoning for fake news-free Switzerland was as follows. “Our editors analyse current events, check sources, interpret events, provide background information and help you to form your own opinion. Credibility is our number one priority – with no alternatives: so that you can distinguish lies from facts,” it said.
In the meantime, communication science has also begun to deal with this phenomenon (e.g., Zimmermann & Kohring, 2018). The already extensive literature is showing that the term encompasses various phenomena and contains different aspects: is the dissemination of fake news conscious and intentional, especially with the intention of deception? Are the claims objectively false with or without intention to the true, or just twisted claims? Is it about current topics or about historical “lies”?
Against this background, the journalists of leading news media were asked in our interviews how they could defend themselves against misinformation, for example, with a special editorial unit to combat misinformation or by working with external fact-checking organisations?
All media professionals interviewed were aware of the problem and stressed upon the importance of avoiding misinformation as gatekeepers. As a result, various editorial offices today have institutionalised teams for fact-checking information and its sources, or in the event of uncertainty, the parties are sitting together with the department’s management or editor-in-chief. In addition, as a rule, no information is published without explicitly mentioning one or two existing independent sources. This applies not only to text information, but also to images or videos and especially to messages from social media. But automated and/or algorithmic tools do not seem to be used yet.
Also, in an international comparison, in most of the countries involved in the MDM project, false or “misinformation” is recognised as a problem and appropriate measures is being taken against it, with the exception of Iceland, Austria or Italy. For example, where the phenomenon appears to be of rather minor relevance and no defence mechanisms have been institutionalised. In most editorial offices, therefore, the verification of supposed facts, often by specialised experts or even special departments such as public broadcasting in Greece, has become institutionalised. But it is only in various countries, such as Finland, Belgium (Flanders), and Portugal, that independent organisations have emerged which have been specialised in fact-checking. And in the Netherlands, algorithmic tools appear to being used by some media to verify online comments.
