How Chinese fact-checkers perceived and their professional roles within the media environment of China was, according to the author Hanya Yang from Loughborough University, a topic not previously researched, and thus in need of covering. This lack of coverage was likely due to difficulties in access

Recently, fact-checking has been increasingly distinguished from conventional journalism (Bengtsson and Schousboe 2024; Singer 2021). Fact-checking, being grounded in Western normative commitment to objectivity, has been described as a “democratic building tool”.

Due to the connection fact-checking has with democracy, much less attention has been paid to fact-checkers in other countries, where fact-checking has often emerged from informal contexts rather than well-funded journalistic institutions.

China offers an interesting context, as fact-checkers have to manage the tension between professional ideals and the structural constraints. Thus, the author sought to examine whether Western fact-checking ideals like objectivity and autonomy can be maintained under formal and informal restrictions, up to and including censorship. 

The research questions for this study were:

RQ1: How do the representatives of Chinese fact-checking organizations perceive their professional roles?

RQ2: How do fact-checkers’ role perception relate to their role enactment in China?

For materials, the study drew on 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Chinese fact-checkers in Chinese. The participants represented student-driven, newsroom-based, independent nonprofit, and government-run outlets, presenting a wide spectrum of journalistic organizations.

There were six distinct roles that arose from the discussions. The first (1) was that of “the educator”, who raises public awareness and knowledge. The second (2) was “the rumor-buster”, debunking misinformation. Then (3) there was “the curator” who disseminates better information. As for the fourth (4), there was “the independent advocate”, who safeguards and improves journalistic standards. “The gate-watcher” (5) sets the record straight; and “the facilitator” (6) promotes national unity and social stability. 

Of the roles, “the educator” was central to the understanding of the participants – they saw fact-checking as a pedagogical practice. Also, “the rumor-buster” was central, many saw debunking rumors as a main occupation in fact-checking. The third role – “the curator” –  was particularly prominent among students.  

“The independent advocate” role was seen by the participants as countering the “he said, she said” journalism, and outcome of the diminishing international journalism in China. “The facilitator” role emerged among those connected to state-affiliated organizations. The Mingcha participants articulated the “gate-watcher” role – with Mingcha combining political responsibility with journalistic professionalism.

When it comes to independence, the views were strongly shaped by organizational affiliations: independent fact-checkers reported a high degree of editorial freedom, while journalists for Mingcha explicitly stated that their independence was limited. These differences in autonomy shaped how the participants articulated their roles. 

In conclusion, the six roles and their enactment demonstrated both continuity with existing research and adaptation to the Chinese context. Thus, Chinese fact-checkers combined professional ideals with context-specific adaptations – there were still similarities with global fact-checking practices. However, the political and institutional pressures led them to focus more on international matters.

The article “Negotiating Professional Roles in a Constrained Media System: Role Perception and Narrated Enactment among Fact-Checkers in China” by Hanya Yang is in Journalism Studies. (Open access). 

Picture: Beijing Liangmaqiao anagoria 03.jpg in Wikimedia Commons.