Fact-Checking as Resistance

Fact-checking is often presented as a neutral, technical practice. You verify a claim. You check the sources. You publish the result. Simple.

This is wrong. Fact-checking is not neutral. It never has been.

In an environment saturated with lies, stating a fact is a political act.

Let me show you why.

The Myth of Neutrality

Journalism schools teach fact-checking as if it were plumbing. A mechanical process. Find the claim. Locate the evidence. Match them up. Publish the verdict.

This framing obscures what fact-checking actually does: it asserts that truth exists, that it can be determined, and that it matters more than power.

These are not neutral claims.

When I ran a Dutch Catholic newspaper in the 1930s, the Nazis pressured us to stop fact-checking their propaganda. They did not object to our tone. They did not complain about bias.

They objected to verification itself.

Because verification undermines authority. It says: your claim is not true because you said it. It is only true if evidence supports it.

Power hates this.

Fact-Checking Under Pressure

When I refused to publish Nazi propaganda without verification, they did not send me a thoughtful letter about editorial balance. They shut down the newspaper. Then they arrested me.

I was sent to Dachau. I was executed.

This was not because I was biased against the Nazis. This was because I refused to let their claims go unchecked.

Fact-checking was resistance.

The same dynamic exists today, though the mechanisms are different. Governments do not always shut down newspapers. They delegitimize them.

They call fact-checkers “biased.” They claim verification is partisan. They argue that presenting alternative facts is just offering balance.

This is strategic. If fact-checking can be reframed as opinion, then facts become negotiable. And if facts are negotiable, power determines truth.

The “Both Sides” Trap

One of the most insidious ways fact-checking is neutralized is through false equivalence.

A politician makes a claim that is demonstrably false. The fact-checker verifies it is false. The politician accuses the fact-checker of bias.

The outlet, afraid of appearing partisan, publishes a follow-up piece that “examines both sides” of the factual dispute.

This is not neutrality. This is capitulation.

There are not two sides to a fact. There is reality, and there is a claim that contradicts reality.

If a politician says, “The sky is green,” the journalist’s job is not to interview someone who believes the sky is green to provide balance. The job is to report that the sky is blue and the claim is false.

The “both sides” instinct — rooted in a legitimate desire for fairness — becomes a tool for those who want to obscure truth.

Why Powerful Actors Hate Fact-Checking

Fact-checking constrains power in three ways:

First: It creates accountability. If a public figure knows their claims will be verified, they must either tell the truth or face the cost of being caught lying. This limits what they can claim with impunity.

Second: It disrupts propaganda. Effective propaganda relies on repetition and emotional resonance, not factual accuracy. Fact-checking slows the spread of false claims by inserting friction into the information ecosystem.

Third: It asserts that truth is not determined by authority. The president does not get to declare what is true by virtue of being president. The claim must be verified.

This is why authoritarian regimes target fact-checkers first. Not because fact-checkers are oppositional. Because they are structural threats to the claim that power defines reality.

The Limits of Fact-Checking

Fact-checking is necessary. It is not sufficient.

Here is what it cannot do:

It cannot change minds that are motivated by identity, not evidence. If someone believes a claim because it affirms their worldview, showing them evidence to the contrary often backfires. This is the “backfire effect,” and it is real.

It cannot keep pace with the volume of disinformation. Lies spread faster than corrections. A false claim can reach millions in hours. A fact-check takes time to verify, write, and publish. By the time it is live, the lie has moved on.

It cannot fix a broken information ecosystem. If platforms amplify engagement over accuracy, fact-checks will be drowned out by content optimized for virality, not truth.

These limits do not mean fact-checking is futile. They mean it must be paired with structural changes: platform accountability, media literacy, and consequences for deliberate disinformation.

What Good Fact-Checking Looks Like

If you are going to fact-check, do it rigorously.

Be transparent about your methodology. Show your sources. Explain how you verified the claim. Let readers see your work.

Do not hedge when the evidence is clear. If a claim is false, say it is false. Do not soften it with “misleading” or “lacks context” when the claim is a lie.

Verify systematically, not selectively. Fact-check claims from all sides. If you only fact-check one party, you lose credibility. This does not mean false equivalence. It means applying the same standard to everyone.

Prioritize impact over volume. Not every claim needs a fact-check. Focus on claims that are consequential — claims that shape policy, influence elections, or endanger public health.

Update when you are wrong. Fact-checkers make mistakes. When you do, correct it prominently. Credibility depends on being willing to admit error.

The Personal Cost

Fact-checking is not safe.

Journalists who verify claims against power get threatened. They get sued. They get targeted by online harassment campaigns. In some countries, they get killed.

I was one of them.

This is not an argument against fact-checking. This is a warning: if you are going to do this work, understand what it costs.

You will be accused of bias. You will be told you are part of a conspiracy. You will be pressured to back down.

Do not.

The cost of verification is real. The cost of abandoning it is higher.

Fact-Checking as a Practice of Hope

This is the part people miss: fact-checking is not just about exposing lies. It is about asserting that truth is possible.

In a world of manufactured doubt, algorithmic manipulation, and deliberate disinformation, the act of verifying a claim says: reality exists, evidence matters, lies can be exposed.

This is hope in practice.

Not optimism. Hope.

Optimism says everything will be fine. Hope says we can distinguish true from false, and that distinction matters enough to fight for.

Fact-checking is not neutral. It is an act of resistance against the claim that power determines truth.

Do it anyway.