(Extended abstract): Who checks the fact-checkers? Studying the work of External Assessors behind fact-checking organizations

Fact-checking has emerged as a set of practices that aim to invent a new style of political news based on truth-seeking and holding public figures accountable (Graves, 2016). When verifying claims a posteriori, independent fact-checking organizations are commonly seen not to compete but to add to the journalism repertoire. Conventional news outlets have been criticized for reproducing politicians’ claims in a clickbait strategy and non-critical manner, potentially increasing the noise around journalism (Gehrke et al., 2022). Yet, fact-checking organizations have also been accused of bias. Such criticisms have triggered a dispute about truth claims. With more voices adding to information exchange, with an increase in (digital) platforms promoting themselves as ultimate arbiters of truth, drawing boundaries between information, disinformation, and misinformation appears to become a struggle over authority and over the question of who determines what is ‘true’ and ‘false.’ In an anecdotal but genuine inquiry, people often ask: who checks the fact-checkers? This paper attempts to contribute to this debate by investigating the accountability operations behind fact-checking organizations. Specifically, we focus on the ‘behind-the-scenes’ of fact-checking organizations and ask: How do external assessors and advisory boards assist in establishing credibility around fact-checking operations?