Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program has triggered strong reactions across mainstream media, both in New Zealand and internationally—especially from those with a stake in the fact-check narrative.
Many outlets are smearing the move, framing it as a dangerous invite to misinformation and a move exposing the vulnerable to hate online. This defends the status quo.
This one-sided narrative explores only the risks of Meta’s decision while ignoring allegations of political bias, lack of transparency, or the potential benefits of Meta’s new system.
Meta is in retreat from “truth policing”
CEO Mark Zuckerberg argues that third-party fact-checking has been weaponized for political purposes. He points to the COVID pandemic as an example, claiming that Meta faced heavy pressure from the Biden administration to censor even accurate information when it contradicted official narratives.
“Our government was basically demanding that we censor stuff… The way they went about it, I think, violated the law,” Zuckerberg said during a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
Meta will adopt a “Community Notes” system, similar to Elon Musk’s model on X (formerly Twitter). This is a more decentralised system where users collectively add context to questionable content.
The mainstream media frames Meta’s decision to end fact-checking in a negative light
Mainstream media outlets–including, but not limited to PBS, CBS, The New York Times, and The Conversation–have run alarmist headlines attacking Meta. For example, RNZ ran a headline reading: “Meta removing fact checking will have ‘catastrophic consequences’ – disinformation expert”
The “expert” in question is Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa of the widely criticised fact-checking outfit The Disinformation Project. You can decide for yourself whether that was merely political propaganda.
CBS also framed their story around negative, one-sided ‘expert’ opinions. By doing so, readers are primed to doubt Meta’s intentions without first considering the company’s reasoning, signalling to the reader that expert critics hold the “correct” position.
Downplaying concerns about fact-checking bias
Many argue that these kinds of ‘experts’ have contributed to the erosion of public trust in media and fact-checking organizations over the years. There are many credible accusations of political bias, selective enforcement, and overreach.
These concerns are often dismissed or ignored in articles critical of Meta’s decision. Perhaps6the reason is that, for many media outlets, Meta’s move undermines their stake in the badly waning credibility of fact-checking programmes.
CBS, for instance, describes fact-checking organisations as ‘nonpartisan’ and committed to providing ‘accurate information,’ while ignoring ongoing controversy over their perceived bias or role in suppressing alternative viewpoints.
The Atlantic headline “Fact-Checking Was Too Good for Facebook” reflects a tone that shifts the responsibility for any shortcomings or challenges away from fact-checking itself and onto Facebook as a platform.
Few seem willing to acknowledge that perhaps ‘fact-checking’ is bad for business. NZ Free Speech Union’s Jonathan Ayling views Zuckerberg’s embrace of freer speech as “cynical”. He feels Meta is aligning itself with a more popular policy, in line with the cultural and political times, which will ultimately benefit its bottom line.
Yet, many in the mainstream media argue differently. Forbes (among others) has pushed the narrative that Google searches for deleting Meta apps, like Facebook and Instagram, are ‘soaring.’ These articles imply that Meta is pushing a “post-truth” shift, stepping away from accountability and enabling the spread of unverified and harmful content.
Centrist Ltd.