Graphical Models of False Information and Fact Checking Ecosystems

Research has been conducted to study and classify false information to better understand its definition and scope. One popular approach is to categorise false information into misinformation and disinformation (Howard-P2021; Bin-G2020; Wardle-C2017), where the discrimination between the two are subtle (Stahl-BC2006). They can be distinguished by its ‘intention’ (Bin-G2020). Thereby, misinformation can be interpreted as the false information that is without the intention to mislead (Scheufele-DA2019; Kumar-K2014), e.g., the information is incorrect, possibly by accident. Contrarily, disinformation is to intentionally mislead the audience for some purposes via different approaches such as deceptive advertising, government propaganda, doctored photographs, and etc (Fallis-D2015). More specifically, European Commission proposed its definition of disinformation in one of their reports, as ‘all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit’ (HLEG_Report2018).

In addition, Bailey-TC2019 suggested an additional category of false information, malinformation, that is intentionally misleading and used to inflict harm. Nevertheless, Wardle-C2017 argued that malinformation is used to describe the scenario that when genuine information is shared to harm rather than serve the public interest, such as ‘true information that violates a person’s privacy without public interest justification’ (Wardle-C2018).

Moreover, researchers have attempted to categorise false information from real life scenarios, aiming to have a better understanding of the actors, the motivations, and how false information is spread. Zannettou-S2019 categorised false information on the web into eight types including fabricated, propaganda, conspiracy theories, hoaxes, biased or one-sided, rumors, clickbait, and satire news. In addition, they identified a number of false information actors (e.g., bots, criminal/terrorist organisations, governments, activist or political organisations, journalists, etc.) with different motives (e.g., malicious intent, influence, profit, passion, etc.).

Similarly, Meel-P2020 suggested that the false information can be considered as information pollution with a number of identified motivations (e.g., political intent, financial profit, passion, increase customer base, etc.), and it has many formats, including rumor, fake news, misinformation, disinformation, clickbait, hoax, satire/parody, opinion spam, propaganda, conspiracy theories.

To better explain the complexity of false information categorisation, Meel-P2020 argued that all the categories of false information are sharing some heterogeneity. One example is fake news, which is overlapping with satire, misinformation, rumor, disinformation, and opinion spam. Considering the dynamic context of fake news and its broad scope, Molina-D2021 further suggested that fake news is beyond the spectrum of false information and concluded that fake news should be considered as an umbrella term with seven categories including false information(false news), polarized content, satire, misreporting, commentary, persuasive information, and citizen journalism.

Due to the negative impact of false information/fake news on different aspects of the society at a global scale, academia, industry, international and national organisations have made significant effort to act against the generation and the spread of false information. On the international level, the European Commission launched the major counter-disinformation initiatives in 2018 (EU_Report2018a; Renda-A2018), set up a high-level group of experts (HLEG) to advise on relevant policy initiatives, and introduced a Eurobarometer survey and self-regulatory Code of Practices for the big social platforms (EU_Report2018b).

There are many different fact-checking outlets in Europe, and all share the same goal of promoting truth to the public. Graves-L2016 studied fact-checking sites in Europe and suggested that fact-checkers in Europe can be categorised into three types: 1) reporter normally considers the fact-checking mission in journalistic terms to inform the public; 2) reformer primarily uses fact-checking as part of an agenda of political reform; 3) expert is more or less considered as a think tank.

In addition, Graves-L2016 argued that there are two main fact-checking models: 1) the newsroom model is associated with established media companies, where the legacy news media remain the main source of political fact-checking, such as ‘FactCheck’ program from Channel 4 News, ‘Reality Check blog’ from Guardian; 2) the non government organisation (NGO) model represents fact-checking outlets operate independently or backed by NGO or charity such as ‘FullFact’⁵⁵5https://fullfact.org/ from UK and ‘Teyit.org’⁶⁶6https://teyit.org/ from Turkey.

World widely, the international fact-checking network (IFCN)⁷⁷7https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/ at Poynter⁸⁸8The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a non-profit journalism school and research organisation in US https://www.poynter.org/ has a growing community of fact-checking/fact-checker organisations to advocate of factual information in the fight against misinformation/disinformation/fake news, where verified signatories of the IFCN includes ‘PolitiFact’⁹⁹9https://www.politifact.com/ and ‘FactCheck’¹⁰¹⁰10https://www.factcheck.org/ from United States (US), ‘FullFact’¹¹¹¹11https://fullfact.org/ from United Kingdom (UK), ‘20 Minutes Fake Off’¹²¹²12https://www.20minutes.fr/ from France, ‘Maldita’¹³¹³13https://maldita.es/ from Spain, ‘Africa Check’¹⁴¹⁴14https://africacheck.org/fact-checks from South Africa, ‘Annie Lab’¹⁵¹⁵15https://annielab.org/ from Hong Kong, ‘Australian Associated Press’¹⁶¹⁶16https://www.aap.com.au/ from Australia, ‘Teyit’¹⁷¹⁷17https://teyit.org/ from Turkey, ‘BOOM’¹⁸¹⁸18https://www.boomlive.in/ from India, and etc¹⁹¹⁹192022 full list can be found from https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/signatories.

By reviewing the fact-check and false information/fake news detection methodologies, Collins-B2021 classified several common approaches: experts/professionals fact-checker approach, crowd-sourced approach, machine learning approach, natural language processing technique, hybrid technique, expert-crowdsource approach, human-machine approach, graph-based method, deep learning approach, and recommendation system approach. Based on these different approaches, researchers have also developed a number of fact-checking tools such as TweetCred (Gupta-A2014), Hoaxy (Shao-C2016), ClaimBuster (Hassan-N2017), Fake News Tracker (Shu-K2019), NudgeCred (Bhuiyan-M2021), and etc. In addition to the effort from scholars, players from tech industry has also joined the battle of false information/fake news and developed a number of tools, such as the ‘Fact Check Explorer’²⁰²⁰20https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer developed by Google, ‘Third-party fact-checking program’²¹²¹21https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking by Meta, Twitter’s Birdwatch platform²²²²22https://twitter.github.io/birdwatch/, AI powered fact-checking platforms and services provided by Logically²³²³23https://www.logically.ai and CheckStep²⁴²⁴24https://www.checkstep.com, etc.

Despite a plethora of research on false information and fact-checking/false information/fake news detection, research on the relationship between fact-checking (fact-checker) and false information, and the associated ecosystems are overlooked. Jiang-S2018 investigated the linguistic signals expressed in social media comments in the presence of misinformation and fact-checking, and found that the fact-checking can have positive effects on linguistic signals but can also cause potential ‘backfire’ effects.

Burel-G2020 studied the relation between misinformation and fact-checking information/report spread during the Covid-19 pandemic. They observed the similarity in how both information spread in social media and discovered that fact-checking information has a positive effect on combat misinformation, but with a short span due to the overwhelming amount of misinformation spread compared with the amount of fact-checking information.

Nicole-K2020 considered fact-checking for Covid-19 misinformation as risk communication, and identified that fact-check Covid-19 misinformation will be difficult tasks given the complicated relationship and varying levels of trust. Furthermore, Yang-A2021 looked at the relationship between fact-checkers and spreaders of Covid-19 vaccine misinformation on Facebook. They revealed that fact-checkers’ posts can received more comments, however, misinformation spreaders can more easily use the URL co-sharing network to coordinate communication strategies.

To best of our knowledge, we are not aware of any existing works focus on understanding and exploring the false information and fact-checking ecosystem using graphical models or similar techniques. The main aim of this paper is to fill this gap by proposing a conceptual ecosystem for false information and fact-checking using a graphical model to discover and represent the complex relationship among different actors (e.g., media outlets, fact-checkers, false information spreaders, etc.) of the ecosystem.

The graphical model we introduce for traditional media outlets fact-checking are the foundational abstractions for several other potential formal models. First, it is the graphical depictions of multi-agent systems that are commonly used in AI. Second, it visualises a methodology to approach the issue of fact-checking from a “knowledge representation and modelling” perspective. Fact-checking is an interesting “laboratory” for knowledge representation and epistemic logic (that is the logic of knowledge) and the current model is a stepping stone to form a full epistemic model of the phenomenon.

The graphical model can be formalised as a directed graph as shown in Figure 0(a), representing different types of entities and their relationships. The graph can be denoted as $G=(V,E)$, where $V=\{V_i{\}}_{i=1}^N$ and $E=\{E_j{\}}_{j=1}^M$ represent a set of N nodes and a set of M edges, respectively. Each node $V_i$ represents a type of entities that is depicted by a rounded corner rectangle in the proposed graph model, and each edge $E_j$ and the associated textual label describe a semantic relationship between the connected two entity types.

Round corner rectangles are used to represent entities, where entity types coloured in yellow representing different types of information (e.g., news, report), and entity types coloured in green representing document based entities and other tools/datasets/resources based entities.

All entity attributes are depicted by light blue coloured ellipses. It is worth noting that the reason to single out these specific attributes is they are relevant and essential to better describe the context of different semantic relationships between entity types, and thereby to facilitate explaining and modelling the ecosystem. However, the inclusion of these attributes does not mean to discard or ignore other attributes that are not explicitly shown in the Figure 0(a). More different attributes can be added to different entity types to enhance the compatibility and scalability of the graphical model for modelling more specific scenarios under specific contexts.

Moreover, solid lines with textual labels refer to semantic relationship between two entity types, where ‘fact-checked’ and ‘regulates’ are coloured in blue and red, respectively, to emphasise the important ‘fact-checking’ side of the ecosystem as well as offering better readability. It is worth noting that we use verbs in different tenses for different textual labels to capture the importance of time in a semantic relationship.

Similar to the model reported in Section 3.1, a directed graph as shown in Figure 0(b) can be denoted as $G_b=(V_b,E_b)$, where $V_b=\{V_b{}_i{\}}_{i=1}^N$ and $E_b=\{E_b{}_j{\}}_{j=1}^M$ represent a set of N nodes and a set of M edges respectively. We will refer this model as graphical model B. There are $N=12$ entity types, 6 of them including RCL, R, O, P, F, and FA have been explained in Section 3.1, and the rest of the entity types for this model are described below.

• User generated content (UGC) is the content user produced and published to public or privately within in a social group/online group via his/her online account.

• Account (AC) refers to online accounts, which are ‘virtual identities’ for online services (e.g., Google³⁶³⁶36www.google.com account, Facebook³⁷³⁷37www.facebook.com account, etc.). Two attributes are added to this entity type to better describe the context and model the behaviours. As some people have the capability to fact check the content published by his/her own account or other accounts, fact checking is added to the AC entity. In addition, people can also create fake account for whatsoever reasons, attribute ‘is false’ is added here to reflect this matter.

• Service (S) refers to different online services (e.g., Google, Facebook, Instagram³⁸³⁸38www.instagram.com, etc.).

• Service provider (SP) represents organisations that relate to one or more services.

• Social group (SG) refers to a physical group of people that are socially connected.

• Online group (OG) represents virtual groups of online accounts that are hosted by specific online services.

Similar to the approach to describe graphical model A, we will start explaining graphical model B from P entity and further expand to explore other edges between different entity types. As shown in Figure 0(b), P entity owns and uses AC entity to creates UGC entity, which is the only way for a person to publish UCG, where UCG can be in various formats depending on the S entity that the AC entity belongs to, e.g., UCG can be: Tweets published/retweeted via Twitter³⁹³⁹39https://twitter.com/, product review by a consumer via Amazon⁴⁰⁴⁰40https://www.amazon.com, video published at YouTube⁴¹⁴¹41https://www.youtube.com, messages via WhatsApp⁴²⁴²42https://www.whatsapp.com and WeChat⁴³⁴³43https://www.wechat.com, etc.

The consumes and comments relationships between AC entity and UCG entity denote that online accounts of the same service can interact with each other, meaning that an online account can read/view and leave comments/feedback to UCG created by him/herself or other online accounts. In addition, the attribute fact checking of AC entity suggests that an online account can fact check his/her own UCG or UCG created by other online accounts. The attribute fact checking is also attached to P entity, denoting that a person without an account could also do fact check on the UGC that is created for public access.

The inclusion of the attribute is false of AC entity is to model scenarios that a person creates a fake account to spread misinformation/disinformation/malformation to achieve different purposes (e.g., fraud, online grooming, terrorism, etc.). However, this does not suggest that all UCG created by fake accounts have malicious intention. Some of them might just want to protect their privacy or for the convenience (e.g., create an fake account to play games).

Moreover, the creates, manages, and belongs to attributes linking AC entity and OG entity describe the scenarios of an online account can create a online virtual group and other online accounts belong to this group can also manage the group. The similar mapping relationship in the physical world is the belongs to relationship between P entity and SG entity. Here, such edges could have impact on the type of UCG published. For instance, if a person belongs to either an OG or a SG that its members share the same religion or political view, the UGC created might need to fit into the SG/OG’s agenda or at least have the common interests. Similarly, O entity would have the same effect on P entity to influence the UGC created.

The development of the internet technologies have resulted a plethora of services (S)/platforms and service providers (SP) allowing everyone to easily create and share UGC such as their stories, videos, pictures, etc. This facilitate the generation of new types of media outlets that are different from the tradition media outlets. We Media is the most representative case. This term was firstly introduced by (Bowman-S2003), and refers to news generated by grass-root media outlets.

We Media can grow into large and influential media outlets (such as celebrity’s social media, YouTube influencer, etc.) in terms of subscribers, but their operation remains largely around a single individual. If we ought to use the proposed graphical model B to model its ecosystem, a We Media can be represented as a P entity and an AC entity. Then the relationship between other entity types (i.e., O, SG, OG, S, SP, and RCL) with P and AC entity can be further explored to model different incentives (such as financial, political, religion, etc.) of We Medias. Since We Media operators are not trained journalists, their ethical standards and practical knowledge are likely much lower and some can behave unethically to pursue monetary gains only. Hence, certain level of regulating and fact checking are needed, similar to the graphic model A, R entity and FO entity and FOA entity with a number of regulates and fact check edges as shown in Figure 0(b) can have their impact on the We media ecosystem.

As shown in Figure 1, one entity type can have same semantic relationships with multiple entity types for both models. For instance, in Figure 0(a), MO, a FO, a P can all fact check N. In such situation, the competitive or collaborative fact-checking relationship from multiple entities must be present. To get more insights about such phenomenons, it would require to further investigate the other entities types with their edges connecting to them.

Such snowballing effect can lead to interesting observations and findings that would require to use other theories such as game theory to offer better elaboration. One example would be the game between regulators and news outlets and fact checkers, it would consider not just financial benefits and reputation gains, but also legal costs. Note that regulators may also act illegally and can pay legal costs if their wrong decisions are challenged by large media outlets or fact checkers.

In addition, as shown in Figure 1, entity types colored in light green are used in both parts of the graphical model. They are also the anchor points to link and merge the two models in to one. The advantage of producing one overall graphic model is to offer a more straight forward way to compare traditional media outlets with new forms of media outlets such as We Media in terms of the incentives, business models, fact-checking practices, and the competitions/collaborations between the two. As the model grows, the relationships between entity type can become more complex, which allows modelling a wider range of scenarios such as comparing the traditional media outlets with UCG based media outlets.

On 25th February, 2022, BBC Breakfast played a clip of military planes and claimed that they are Russian military flying into Ukraine following the invasion of Ukraine. As shown in Figure 2, Sarah Turnidge from FullFact, who is also a journalist, conducted fact-checking on this video clip and prepared a fact-check report, which was later published as a news release by FullFact. The report stated that the footage from BBC Breakfast was preparations for a military parade near Moscow from May 2020, but not about the invasion as it claimed. As depicted in Figure 2, from the audience perspective, Person B is more likely to spread the misinformation than Person A who first watched the BBC Breakfast show, and then, later read about the fact-check report released by FullFact. One interesting finding as illustrated in the figure is that the video clip broadcast on BBC Breakfast show was originally from a wide spread video clip on Twitter, and which has been fact-checked by different fact-checking outlets: 1) On 24th Feb 2022, Maldita fact-checked the video clip on Twitter and published a news release on its website; 2) On 24th Feb 2022, another journalist, also a fact-checker Abbas Panjwani from Full Fact conducted fact-checking on this video clip, and a corresponding news releases was published by FullFact; 3) On 25th Feb 2022, AFP Fact Check debunked this and released a statement on its Twitter account.

Despite all the fact-checking reports were priorly available, such misinformation was still in the wild. Based on Sarah Tunidge’s fact-checking report (Turnidge-S2022), one spokesperson from BBC confirmed that “The footage was used once briefly in error and the team have been reminded about verifying images”. This suggests that BBC have an internal review team equipped with a certain level of internal review or fact-checking mechanism as demonstrated in Figure 2, yet the video clip with the false claim was broadcast. There might be some reasons and intentions to support this, but it is not our position to speculate. However, if we further extend this sub-graph to bring in other entity types and semantic relationships, more analysis can be done to investigate this incident further.

This scenario includes modelling fact-checking services and resources provided by fact-checking organisations, companies, associations, and networks by using the proposed graphical model. Figure 3 exemplifies the scenario with multiple services and resources that a person can benefit for performing fact-checking. Given a news article including a number of suspicious claims, Person A examines if the claims have been previously fact-checked by any fact-checking organisation, e.g., Full Fact, and Snopes, through their fact-checks archives where Person A can search for previous fact-checks. Besides, Person A can review the recent fact-checks via periodical watch newsletters published by IFCN, i.e., Factually Newsletters, which contains the recent fact-checks collected from the verified signatories of IFCN. Nevertheless, Person A can also subscribe to the newsletters published by the IFCN-verified fact-checking organisations directly to receive more country-specific fact-checks. In addition, Person A can also publish comments in correspondence to the news article, as well as to read comments published by others.

Apart from fact-checking organisations and networks, many companies provide solutions that others can make use of while fact-checking. If the suspicious claims have never fact-checked by a fact-checking organisation, Person A requests verification from Logically’s IFCN-verified fact-checking team through the Logically App⁴⁴⁴⁴44https://www.logically.ai/products/app. Other than the content of the news article, Person A can assess the credibility of the news source by checking the source’s NewsGuard Rating⁴⁵⁴⁵45https://www.newsguardtech.com/solutions/newsguard/, which is the trust rating published by NewsGuard.

In this section, we intend to demonstrate that the sub system for regulation part of the graphical model proposed in Section 3 can be explored and enhanced to reveal the complexity of the regulation part of the ecosystem.

There are many active independent regulators (i.e., this can be considered as a sub-type of Regulator entity) in the UK. Before September 2014, The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was the voluntary regulator for British printed newspapers and magazines (N.B., we used dotted red lines and past tense ‘regulated’ to indicate such relationship). In this scenario, we list representative media outlets including Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Mail, The Financial Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. However, after September 2014, The Independent Press Standard Organisation (IPSO) replaced PCC as an independent regulator, implementing the Editor Code created by Editor Code Committee, continuing regulating Telegraph, Daily Mail, and The Mail. As show in Figure 4, IPSO is financed by Regulatory Funding Company (RFC), who is funded by Telegraph Media Limited and Associated Newspaper Limited. It is worth noting that, Telegraph Media Limited owns Telegraph and Associated Newspaper Limited owns Daily Mail and The Mail. Such relationships raised some concerns, hence The Financial Times, The Independent, and The Guardian refused to join IPSO. Instead, each of them chose to publish their own standards/guidance to self-regulate as illustrated in Figure 4.

In this scenario, we aim to demonstrate the relationships between different types of journalists and their associations with the proposed graphical model. As shown in Figure 5, for the journalist associations on a national scale, we preferred to cover a number of US-based associations as an example.

For journalists working for a media outlet, i.e., reporters in Figure 5, The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)⁴⁶⁴⁶46https://www.spj.org/ and The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA)⁴⁷⁴⁷47https://www.rtdna.org/ are two associations representing journalists. Both associations provide their Code of Ethics as a guideline to their members to follow while performing their work. Besides, they provide several tools and resources to support journalism activities of their members.

Another group of journalists are independent journalists, i.e., freelance journalists, which are professional journalists that does not work for any media outlet, but publish news on their own. For independent journalists, there also exists some communities and organisations that provide support for their journalism activities. SPJ has a community dedicated to independent journalists, called SPJ Freelance Community⁴⁸⁴⁸48https://www.spj.org/freelance.asp, that offers tools and resources to help their members, as well as organises events and programs. Another example is Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc. (IRE)⁴⁹⁴⁹49https://www.ire.org/, which is a grassroots non-profit organisation dedicated to supporting investigative journalism. IRE supports independent journalists through the Freelance Investigative Reporters and Editors (FIRE) project⁵⁰⁵⁰50https://www.firenewsroom.org/, which is a service bureau providing grants and editorial services for freelance journalists. IRE is a member of Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN)⁵¹⁵¹51https://gijn.org/, and all IRE members must follow the IRE Principles.

Finally, citizen journalists are another type of journalists, where individuals publish news collaboratively. Wikinews⁵²⁵²52https://www.wikinews.org/ is a project of Wikimedia Foundation, that serves as a platform for citizen journalism, where users can collaboratively publish news stories provided that they follow the Wikinews Policies and Guidelines.

The second scenario is based on a real incident, in which Twitter permanently suspended the account of the ex-President of the US, Donald Trump. Figure 6 shows the graphical model of the relationships between different actors involved in the incident by using our proposed model. On 6 January 2021, Trump tweeted a video message containing some false claims around that the presidential election had been stolen, and calling his supporters to action (time2021capitol). Consequently, Trump’s supporters gathered, and attacked to the US Capitol, which caused the death of five people. As a result, on 8 January 2021, Twitter permanently suspended Trump’s Twitter account due to “the risk of further incitement of violence”, based on its Civic Integrity Policy. And, the US’ communications regulator, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), did not object to the Twitter’s decision (reuters2021fcc).