Decoding Correction Strategies: How Fact-Checkers Uncover Falsehoods Across Countries

This study systematically analyzes and compares verification strategies employed by fact-checking organizations across various contexts. Utilizing a dataset of 3,154 verification articles from 23 organizations in eight countries across Europe and Latin America, the study identifies 17 distinct debunking techniques through both inductive and deductive approaches. The primary objectives are to uncover common and divergent practices in factual correction, assess how techniques vary by verification target (e.g., online rumors versus statements by public figures), and examine variations at organizational and national levels. The findings reveal that while methods such as providing documents and tracing misinformation origins are prevalent, significant variation exists depending on the target. For online rumors, common practices include tracing misinformation origins, forensic analysis, and visual indicators of image manipulation. Conversely, verification of public figure statements frequently involves expert arbitration and direct contact with misinformation sources. Additionally, the study highlights substantial differences in fact-checking strategies across countries and organizations, influenced by their focus and institutional contexts. This research addresses a notable gap in the literature by offering a comparative analysis of verification strategies, providing a framework for future experimental research, and offering guidance for fact-checkers and scholars to refine their approaches to combating misinformation.