{"id":211578,"date":"2019-09-28T09:44:22","date_gmt":"2019-09-28T14:44:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=211578"},"modified":"2024-09-20T12:19:40","modified_gmt":"2024-09-20T17:19:40","slug":"facebook-fact-checker-fell-short-international-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/facebook-fact-checker-fell-short-international-standards\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook fact-checker ‘fell short’ of standards in Live Action fact check, but claim ‘no bias’"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On August 30, 2019, Health Feedback released<\/a> a “fact check” against Live Action and Lila Rose, claiming that two videos which stated that “abortion is never medically necessary” were false. This led Facebook to label both Live Action and Lila Rose as “false news,” sending out notifications of this assessment to Live Action’s and Rose’s more than three million combined followers, based on the biased review from two abortionists<\/em><\/a>. Health Feedback later doubled down<\/a>, adding more abortionist “fact checkers” to its review. Then, after facing pressure from four U.S. senators<\/a>, Facebook said that Health Feedback would undergo a review<\/a> by the International Fact-Checking Network (ICFN) for its fact check.<\/p>\n

Soon after, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted<\/a> to Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) that he felt the Facebook fact check of Live Action and Lila Rose was “clearly biased.” Then, yesterday, the IFCN released the results<\/a> of its review. While the group — using a multimedia journalism professor as an “independent assessor” — still insists that the fact check was “fair and accurate,” it admits that involving the abortionists in the fact check “fell short” of fact-checking organization standards. The article reads:<\/p>\n

At the outset, the IFCN brought in an independent assessor, Sarphan Uzunoglu, to review the fact-check. Uzunoglu, who is an assistant professor of multimedia journalism at Lebanese American University and has an interdisciplinary background, has never taken \u201cpro-choice\u201d or \u201cpro-life\u201d advocacy positions.<\/em><\/p>\n

Uzunoglu said he found the fact-check\u2019s conclusions to be fair and accurate….<\/em><\/p>\n

Based on the independent review of the fact-check and the responses from Science Feedback, IFCN Director Baybars Orsek, Associate Director Cristina Tardaguila, and the IFCN Advisory Board concluded as follows:<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The findings of Science Feedback\u2019s fact-check were based on publicly available scientific evidence and as not the result of any bias. The claim that \u201cabortion is never medically necessary\u201d is false and inaccurate.<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. The process used by Science Feedback to select the original claim to review was sound and not the result of any systemic bias, and a review of the 10 last fact-checks indicates no systemic bias in the selection of claims to check.<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories<\/strong>. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    As stated, an “independent assessor” with a background in multimedia journalism<\/em> was given the foremost authority to assess how well Health Feedback fact-checked a medically-related<\/em>\u00a0topic. Why were no pro-life obstetrician-gynecologists ever contacted for their<\/em> medical positions on the claim that “abortion is never medically necessary”? Live Action’s Lila Rose released a statement<\/a> in response, calling the “independent assessor” review “farcical”:<\/p>\n

    Today\u2019s ruling only confirms that the justification for banning our views is a corrupt \u2018fact-checking\u2019 system masquerading as independent when really it is the enemy of fairness and free speech. Despite admitting the original fact-check relied upon the evaluation of biased abortion activists, the fact that an individual without any medical credentials was chosen as the final arbiter of which medical information can be shared is farcical.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n

    Live Action is the largest pro-life organization in the world digitally, with over 3.8 million followers, and @Facebook<\/a> has chosen to censor us at the order of: <\/p>\n

    Robyn Schickler, an abortionist. <\/p>\n

    Daniel Grossman, an abortionist & abortion trainer.<\/p>\n

    But there\u2019s \u201cno bias.\u201d<\/p>\n

    — Live Action (@LiveAction) September 27, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n