Meta pulls factchecking support: Partners brace for layoffs

Meta’s decision to discontinue its factchecking partnerships in the United States has left many journalism organizations preparing for staff reductions and financial challenges. With the tech giant ending its funding for factchecking on Facebook and Instagram, a program that has been active since 2016, organizations dependent on this support are bracing for significant changes.

Since the program’s inception, Meta has allocated over $100 million to support organizations certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). These partnerships aimed to reduce the spread of misinformation on its platforms by reviewing posts and tagging those deemed inaccurate. Prominent outlets such as USA Today, Reuters, and specialized factchecking entities like FactCheck.org have worked closely with Meta as part of the initiative. In total, ten organizations in the U.S. were listed as active partners.

The end of this funding is already causing ripples. Alan Duke, cofounder of Lead Stories, acknowledged that the loss of Meta’s contract would lead to revenue drops and staffing cuts for the organization, which employs around 80 people globally. Other partners, like Check Your Fact—a factchecking service affiliated with the conservative Daily Caller—expressed deep concern. Managing editor Jesse Stiller called the move “shocking” and said it placed the organization’s future in jeopardy.

PolitiFact, another partner, revealed that Meta’s contributions account for more than 5% of its total revenue. The organization noted that financial impacts are inevitable for both itself and other factcheckers. Agence France-Presse (AFP), a global news organization also involved in Meta’s factchecking program, described the decision as a severe setback for the broader factchecking community.

The termination of these partnerships contrasts sharply with Meta’s prior messaging about its commitment to combating misinformation. In 2022, the company highlighted its extensive global factchecking network, emphasizing its contributions to health, climate, and social misinformation initiatives. The program included emergency grants for misinformation checks during the COVID-19 pandemic and support for underrepresented factcheckers.

Despite this track record, Meta’s move to end factchecking in the U.S. has been framed as part of a larger pivot in its operational focus. Critics, however, argue that this decision undermines journalism at a time when misinformation is rampant and press freedom is under attack.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has previously defended the company’s approach, dismissing accusations of bias in factchecking. Partner organizations have also refuted claims of political interference, emphasizing the neutrality of their work and their commitment to factual accuracy.

The end of Meta’s funding raises significant questions about the sustainability of factchecking initiatives. Many of its partners now face the challenge of finding alternative sources of funding to maintain operations. This is especially difficult in a media landscape already grappling with economic pressures and declining revenues.

For now, the future of factchecking journalism hangs in the balance, with many organizations wondering whether the gaps left by Meta’s withdrawal can be filled by other institutions. The decision not only threatens the livelihoods of journalists but also jeopardizes efforts to combat misinformation—a critical need in today’s information-driven world.