Question of the week

Fact checks during discussions: yes or no?

It's not only when politicians appear on television that fact-checks on claims made during discussions or confrontations can be useful. Especially in times when fake news and the like are booming, such contributions can ensure that lies don't stand a chance. What do you think of fact checks in general, for example in political discussions? Please let us know!

You can find them more and more frequently in some newspaper and TV reports or on YouTube: fact checks. In a nutshell, they provide more detailed information about statements made by panelists on topics such as climate change, vaccinations or a country's crime rates. 

This can be done in different ways, for example by displaying them in a small extra box or by moderators intervening directly in the discussion and briefly explaining them. They are based on verifiable data and facts and help to correct misinformation. At the same time, they are not only time-consuming and harbor a certain potential for conflict if participants feel attacked or questioned.

Have you ever seen or read posts with fact checks? How did you perceive them and what challenges do you see? Do you think that fact checks can improve the quality of a discussion or not? In which situations do you think they are particularly important, and where are they perhaps superfluous? And how do you actually proceed when you want to check the accuracy of information in a discussion? We look forward to hearing your opinion!