This Master’s thesis in journalism examines the use of argumentation in European fact-check journalism during the months leading up to the European Parliament elections of 2019. The research is focused on content and text analysis of the fact-checking articles published through the FactCheckEU cooperative platform that includes 19 European media outlets from 13 countries. The study analyzes the fact-checking productions through first a quantitative analysis and secondly a qualitative analysis of the 86 fact-checking articles that have been published from FactCheckEU.
The study explores different argumentative approaches that fact-checkers employ when fact-checking a selected claim. The study identifies six primary approaches: a disqualifying approach, an authority-based approach, a deconstructive approach, a mediating approach, a detail-oriented approach and an opponent-free approach.
The study finds that the media outlets of FactCheckEU are mostly focused on claims from politicians and social media sites. Quantitative analysis suggests that argumentative approaches differ based on the claimant’s type. Other possible factors that might influence the fact-checker’s chosen argumentative approach are also discussed, including questions of news value and trust. It is furthermore discussed how the findings of this study might affect the general understanding of the epistemology of fact-checking as well as the future of global fact-checking movement.
|Uddannelser||Journalistik, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) KandidatGlobal Studies, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Kandidat|
- Fact Check
- Fact checking