Independent fact-checking organizations exhibit a departure from political neutrality

Sahajpreet Singh, Sarah Masud, Tanmoy Chakraborty
{"title":"Independent fact-checking organizations exhibit a departure from political neutrality","authors":"Sahajpreet Singh, Sarah Masud, Tanmoy Chakraborty","doi":"arxiv-2407.19498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Independent fact-checking organizations have emerged as the crusaders to\ndebunk fake news. However, they may not always remain neutral, as they can be\nselective in the false news they choose to expose and in how they present the\ninformation. They can deviate from neutrality by being selective in what false\nnews they debunk and how the information is presented. Prompting the now\npopular large language model, GPT-3.5, with journalistic frameworks, we\nestablish a longitudinal measure (2018-2023) for political neutrality that\nlooks beyond the left-right spectrum. Specified on a range of -1 to 1 (with\nzero being absolute neutrality), we establish the extent of negative portrayal\nof political entities that makes a difference in the readers' perception in the\nUSA and India. Here, we observe an average score of -0.17 and -0.24 in the USA\nand India, respectively. The findings indicate how seemingly objective\nfact-checking can still carry distorted political views, indirectly and subtly\nimpacting the perception of consumers of the news.","PeriodicalId":501172,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - STAT - Applications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - STAT - Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.19498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Independent fact-checking organizations have emerged as the crusaders to debunk fake news. However, they may not always remain neutral, as they can be selective in the false news they choose to expose and in how they present the information. They can deviate from neutrality by being selective in what false news they debunk and how the information is presented. Prompting the now popular large language model, GPT-3.5, with journalistic frameworks, we establish a longitudinal measure (2018-2023) for political neutrality that looks beyond the left-right spectrum. Specified on a range of -1 to 1 (with zero being absolute neutrality), we establish the extent of negative portrayal of political entities that makes a difference in the readers' perception in the USA and India. Here, we observe an average score of -0.17 and -0.24 in the USA and India, respectively. The findings indicate how seemingly objective fact-checking can still carry distorted political views, indirectly and subtly impacting the perception of consumers of the news.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独立事实核查组织偏离了政治中立性
独立的事实核查组织已经成为揭穿假新闻的斗士。然而,它们可能并不总是保持中立,因为它们在选择揭露虚假新闻以及如何呈现信息时可能会有所选择。他们可能会偏离中立,选择性地揭露哪些假新闻,以及如何呈现信息。我们将现在流行的大型语言模型 GPT-3.5 与新闻框架相结合,建立了一个政治中立性的纵向衡量标准(2018-2023 年),它超越了左右光谱。在-1 到 1 的范围内(0 为绝对中立),我们确定了美国和印度读者对政治实体的负面描述程度。在这里,我们观察到美国和印度的平均得分分别为-0.17 和-0.24。研究结果表明,看似客观的事实核查仍可能带有扭曲的政治观点,从而间接、微妙地影响消费者对新闻的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Bayesian framework to evaluate evidence in cases of alleged cheating with secret codes in sports Unsupervised anomaly detection in spatio-temporal stream network sensor data A Cost-Aware Approach to Adversarial Robustness in Neural Networks Teacher-student relationship and teaching styles in primary education. A model of analysis Monitoring road infrastructures from satellite images in Greater Maputo: an object-oriented classification approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1