So you have seen a statement or a claim that has raised some red flags for you. Perhaps you have been studying our guide on what is likely to be ‘fake news’ and something about what you are seeing or reading doesn’t seem… right.

That’s a great first start to getting curious about the source of the statement. 

But your time is valuable, and it’s worth being able to decide whether it’s a claim that you *can* fact-check. This is a key skill for fact-checkers; to be able to discern what is suitable to fact-check and what is not.

Here are questions The Journal FactCheck team asks when deciding which pieces of content they will put on their ‘to-do’ list.

Has the claimant stated something as a fact?

Before setting out, it’s essential to discern whether what you’re checking is measurably true or false (or somewhere in between). The most common claims tend to involve declarative statements, comparisons between things, and the use of statistics, numbers or studies. Claims by politicians about their achievements or things their government has done are good examples.

But you should also be wary: things that initially seem like fact-checkable claims often turn out not to be. If a claim is based on someone’s opinion or is simply rhetorical flourish, it may be hard to measure. 

Likewise, you cannot fact-check things that have not yet happened - like if someone claims that something will happen by the year 2100.

Here’s a little test: which of these claims is not something you can confidently fact-check?

A. Ireland’s obesity rate is 30% 

B. Ireland’s obesity rate is not good enough

C. Ireland has a higher obesity rate than most European countries 

D. Ireland has one of the highest obesity rates in the world 

E. Ireland’s obesity rate is increasing  

The answer is B. What is “not good enough”? Just as there isn’t a clear definition or measurement for a fact-checker to use as a starting point to prove it right or wrong, it’s also a good indication to you, as a reader, that this is rhetoric without a measurable claim - and so only designed to stir up emotion, and cannot be properly backed up with data.

(Note, too, that E. can be fact-checked but only when you can pin down what the claimant meant by ‘increasing’ - from what date to what date? This is where you go to our section ‘Can the claim be otherwise clarified?’)

Is something missing context?

Claims can prove to be true but still be communicated in such a way as to mislead people. Remember that context is crucial: claims which appear to be true but lack context can also be fact-checked, especially when they involve statistics.

A politician may claim that millions are being wasted on a policy without explaining how many people it is helping or how much money it is saving in other forms of expenditure. Climate action sceptics may suggest that Ireland’s carbon emissions are minute compared to global emissions, without clarifying where Ireland actually ranks on a per capita basis - a measurement that would give a much clearer indication of our performance in the international stakes.

‍Is the claim serious?

Sometimes, what appears to be an egregious claim turns out to be a joke. While there will always be people who misinterpret satire as truth, avoid falling into the trap of not getting the joke by fact-checking something that is intended as humorous - unless of course the claim has the potential to do harm or a significant number of people believe it is true. 

This, for example, was the reason The Journal FactCheck decided that most people who encountered an AI-generated image of Pope Francis appearing to sport a trendy long white puffer jacket were in on the joke, and there was no need to publish a debunk. However, we did make the decision to expose a later AI-generated image of the pope which went particularly viral among Irish audiences, with very few questioning its veracity.

‍Can the claim be proven or otherwise clarified?

Seek out more information from the person or company who made the claim. If the claimant is a politician, another public figure or a business, get in touch with them and ask for evidence - you can do this via their communications office or press office (if you’re a journalist; if you’re not and you are really concerned about a claim, be sure to contact us on factcheck@thejournal.ie and we can put in that call if our team feels there is something serious to be checked out).

If evidence isn’t forthcoming, the claimant might still clarify or put context on what they meant, which may address the problems around it. Here’s a good example from June 2022, when then-Tánaiste Leo Varadkar claimed the Irish government had done “a lot more” than the UK government to address the cost-of-living crisis. What does “a lot more” mean? Well, we asked him - and only with extra context from Varadkar’s office could we assess his claim.

In other words, ask, ask and ask again, until the claimant concedes they don’t have the raw data to back their argument; or communicates clearly what they meant by their statement. You can then proceed more confidently.