2004
Volume 46, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

In recent decades, technological developments have led to a massive increase in the amount of information as well as the speed at which it is shared. For forming opinions and making decisions, it is crucial to be able to make a responsible selection from this information. But how do we determine which information is correct and what can be classified as misinformation? And on what basis can we make such judgments?

One way to identify misinformation is through fact-checking. However, its scope is limited: fact-checking only assesses the accuracy of a single factual statement, while such a statement often forms part of a broader argumentative strategy. In addition to its limited scope, fact-checking has also been criticized for its limited effectiveness.

In this article, we present a method that addresses these limitations by considering the argumentative context of factual (and other types of) statements in the analysis. This method, which we call ‘argument-checking’, enables people to examine and assess the quality of information. We first discuss fact-checking and its problems. Then we explain the method of argument-checking and provide an example analysis. Finally, we discuss to what extent argument-checking contributes to solving problems related to identifying misinformation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.01.004.PLUG
2024-12-01
2025-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/46/1/TVT2024.01.004.PLUG.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.01.004.PLUG&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amazeen, M.A., Thorson, E., Muddiman, A., & Graves, L. (2015). A Comparison of Correction Formats: The Effectiveness and Effects of Rating Scale versus Contextual Corrections on Misinformation. Arlington, VA: American Press Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergen, A. van (2018). Een balpen bestond nog niet. Historisch Nieuwsblad, 15mei2018 (laatste update 13oktober2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bos, M. van den (2021). In de slag om de waarheid voelde de factcheck als een klappertjespistool. NRC Handelsblad, 22februari2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brave, R., Russo, F., Uzovic, O., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2022). Can an AI Analyze Arguments? Argument-Checking and the Challenges of Assessing the Quality of Online Information. In C.El Morr (Ed.), AI and Society: Tensions and Opportunities (pp. 267-281). New York: Taylor and Francis imprint Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003261247-20
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Custers, Y. (2017). Nederlandse redacties en factcheckers over de zin en onzin van factchecken. Nieuwe Journalistiek, 28feb.2017. Overzichtsartikel Archieven – Factchecken (nieuwejournalistiek.nl)
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Digitale overheid (2024). Geraadpleegd op 12mei2024 via https://www.digitaleover-heid.nl/overzicht-van-alle-onderwerpen/desinformatie/wat-is-desinformatie/
  7. Doorn, M. van (2023). Advancing the debate on the consequences of misinformation: clarifying why it’s not (just) about false beliefs. Inquiry, 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2023.2289137
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Droog, E., Vermeulen, I., Huijstee, D. van, Harutyunyan, D., Tejedor, S., & Pulido, C. (preprint). Combatting the Misinformation Crisis: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Characteristics and Effectiveness of Media Literacy Interventions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ypmur
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, F.H. van, & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2021). Argumentatie. Inleiding in het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen: Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Elizabeth, J. (2014). Who are you calling a fact checker?American Press Institute. Geraadpleegd via https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/fact
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hameleers, M., & Vliegenthart, R. (2021). Desinformatie: De verspreiding en effecten van desinformatie tijdens de COVID-19-pandemie. In Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), COVID-19: Expertvisies op de gevolgen voor samenleving en beleid (pp. 60-66). Geraadpleegd via https://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2021/07/15/covid-19-expertvisiesop-de-gevolgen-voor-samenleving-en-beleid
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hinton, M., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2022). Evaluating reasoning in natural arguments: A procedural approach. Argumentation, 36, 61-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09555-1
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hornikx, J., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2023). Argumentatieanalyse. In J.Karreman & R.van Enschot (Ed.), Tekstanalyse: Methoden en toepassingen (pp. 151-214). 5e herziene druk. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jong, S. de (2019). Precies of rekkelijk: De necrologie van de dagelijkse factcheckrubriek. NRC Next, 2augustus2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Leeman, A., & Braet, A. (1987). Klassieke retorica. Haar inhoud, functie en betekenis. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff / Forsten.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Leeman, F. (host) (2021, 12januari). FactGurus. Hilversum: BNR.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U.K.H., Seifert, C.M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Linden, S. van der (2022). Misinformation: Susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nature Medicine, 28, 460-467.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Maanen, H. van (2019). Grote encyclopedie van misvattingen. Den Haag: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2019). Kamerbrief beleidsinzet bescherming democratie tegen desinformatie (bijlage). 14juni2019, 2019-30821/91.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2022). Kamerbrief rijksbrede strategie effectieve aanpak van desinformatie. 23december2022, 2022-0000708642.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Musi, E., & Reed, C. (2022). From fallacies to semi-fake news: Improving the identification of misinformation triggers across digital media. Discourse and Society, 33(3), 349-370.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Plug, H.J., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2020). From fact-checking to rhetoric-checking: Extending methods for evaluating populist discourse. In I.M.van der Geest, H.Jansen & B.van Klink (Eds.), Vox populi: Rhetoric of populism (pp. 236-252). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Porter, E., & Wood, T.J. (2021). The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2104235118
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Susmann, M.W., & Wegener, D.T. (2022). The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation. Memory & Cognition50(2): 435-448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Uscinski, J.E., & Butler, R.W. (2013). The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), 62-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R.L., & Morag, Y. (2019). Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Walton, D.N., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wagemans, J.H.M. (2009). Redelijkheid en overredingskracht van argumentatie: Een historisch-filosofische studie over de combinatie van het dialectische en het retorische perspectief op argumentatie in de pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wagemans, J.H.M. (2020). Why missing premises can be missed: Evaluating arguments by determining their lever. In J.Cook (Ed.), Proceedings of OSSA 12: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity.Windsor, ON: OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Saturday/1
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wagemans, J.H.M. (2023). How to identify an argument type? On the hermeneutics of persuasive discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 203, 117-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wieringa, T. (2020). Gevaarlijke gekken. NRC Handelsblad, 5september2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2024). Global Risk Report 2024. Geraadpleegd op 15mei2024 via https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.01.004.PLUG
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.01.004.PLUG
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error