Election 2015: these fact-checkers will tell you if a claim is true, false, misleading or even “farcical”

It has been 10 years since comedian Stephen Colbert first employed the landmark term “truthiness” on his satirical television show The Colbert Report.

The overwhelmingly popular witticism underscores a complex and often confusing phenomenon: that, in politics, “truth” often “comes from the gut” and not from facts. The truthiness trend, and the way ideology and spin have become seamlessly embedded in all political communications, troubles many political observers. But two recent U of T grads are doing something about it. 

Dana Wagner and Tyler Sommers co-founded the non-partisan FactsCan.ca with friend Jacob Schroeder. Their mission is simple: to create a space that will help Canadian voters decipher complex political claims to separate facts from falsehoods in the lead up to the upcoming federal election. 

“Most Canadians don’t have the time to dig through complex policy documents before they cast their ballot,” says Sommers, who works full-time with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in Ottawa. “Because there is little disincentive for politicians to lie and spin, some will continue to do it.”

That realization has led to a rise in fact-checking organizations worldwide; Duke University recently found 64 active fact-checking websites spread across six continents. FactsCan.ca, however, is the first dedicated organization of its kind in Canada. 

“There is something inherently sexy about fact-checking and the finding of inaccuracies,” says Wagner, a journalism graduate who now works as a policy researcher at Ryerson University. “There is this beauty in distilling complex information to a very distinct point. It’s surprising just how much is cherry-picked or totally taken out of context.” 

Modelled largely on the U.S.-based PolitiFact.com, FactsCan.ca examines statements made by politicians on everything from defence and immigration to health and climate change. The team tries to tackle claims that are “significant, interesting and/or new to the public,” says Wagner. 

Each claim is thoroughly researched and written up in quasi-legal style that includes links and sources. Requests for clarification or further information are sent to politicians in order to ensure pinpoint accuracy. Team members collaborate on giving each claim a score: “true”, “false”, “misleading”, “farcical”, or (once, when information about CSIS wasn’t available) “withholding judgment”. Their definitions for the terms are:

• True: Verifiably accurate and free of deception. There is no ‘mostly true’ score; if a statement is accurate and also needs to be clarified but in a non-significant way, it should be scored as True
• Misleading: Some selective truth-telling and omissions, and/or somewhat contradictory, but no falsehoods. If there is a form of significant deception, it should be scored as Misleading
• False: Verifiably inaccurate. If there are at least two credible sources that refute the statement; or if there is no evidence when it has been claimed that there is
• Farcical: Verifiably inaccurate and an egregious lapse of logic, almost indifferent to believability
• Witholding judgment: When evidence cannot be obtained. This score should rarely be used

For example, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre earned a “farcical” for claiming a Liberal plan would take away every benefit the current government has delivered for families. In fact, the three programs introduced by the Conservative would be kept or replaced with similar programs, meaning “at least three benefits” would not be cut, says FactsCan.ca. “Poilievre’s claim runs contrary to all available information.” 

As a non-partisan group, FactsCan.ca analyzes politicians of all ideological stripes, and is careful to ensure balanced coverage of the Conservatives, Greens, Liberals and NDP.

“Our currency is being bias-free,” says Wagner. “It’s the only way people are going to take seriously what we are reporting.” 

It’s been tough, Wagner admits, trying to go from a standing start to full speed in less than a year before the 2015 campaign. The group formed last December and, in February, crowdfunded $8,300 to pay incorporation fees and build the website. But the staff of 15 are still unpaid for their work. Wagner admits that a different business model will be necessary to help them stay afloat in the future. For now, truth is the pressing task. 

“Voting isn’t just about casting a ballot,” says Sommers. “It is about having your say in the future of your country and most voters aren’t getting the kind of information they need to make an educated choice without all the spin.”