Does fact-checking foster mistrust in the media?

Rachel Baig is a journalist and media trainer at DW and DW Akademie. She is a founding member of DW's fact-checking team and has been the deputy head of the team since 2024. She is a multimedia journalist and editor as well as a presenter for the team's fact-checking format. Since April 1, 2026, she has been heading the DW Urdu Service.

DW Akademie: The amount of fakes and false information online seems overwhelming. How do you at DW decide which topics to cover? 

Rachel Baig: At DW, we use four criteria to select our topics. It is very important that we do not exaggerate a story or give room to a topic or rumor that is irrelevant to most people. This is why first of all, we check whether a topic has already gone viral, either through the number of clicks or public debate.  

Secondly, a story should not only be relevant for a small group of people but address a larger audience. This is why we choose topics that affect different regions at the same time, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine or the Hantavirus.  

The third criterion is that the topic must be compatible with DW standards. This means we do not cover trivial or purely lifestyle-related content.  

Finally, the topic must be verifiable. We therefore avoid focusing on predictions or broad conspiracy theories. It is essential that we be able to substantiate multiple aspects of a topic and provide a well-founded, in-depth analysis. 

After the fact-checking boom, there was a sense of disillusionment in early 2025, with many large tech platforms discontinuing their fact-checking programs. How has this affected your work? 

I think for us, these developments were a blessing in disguise. Yes, there are fewer funds now for the fact-checking field as such, and that is tragic. But it has also led to the remaining fact-checking organizations moving closer together and joining forces. Before, there was a lot of competition, it was always about who publishes first and under which name. 

Today, we collaborate as part of the ARD-fact-checking-network and share an info channel. We also work closely with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)and talk regularly about questions such as “Who is working on which story? Where can we collaborate?” We are making use of our resources and shared expertise much more efficiently.  

As a fact-checker, how do you view the topic of AI with its potentials and risks? Which way is the pendulum swinging? 

There are many ups and downs. Unfortunately, it now looks like the negative side is getting stronger, because the tools that we use for debunking fakes are not nearly as advanced as the ones which produce fakes in the first place. But it is also a good challenge to keep learning and to stay informed. In our work, we try out AI production tools to understand and find patterns when we are debunking fakes. Here we also benefit from our networks and exchanges with other experts, like the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). We work together with the Fraunhofer Institute and try out their tools.  

Of course, AI is also a blessing in a way, because we can do many things much faster and more efficiently. But it’s always with a grain of salt, because AI can never replace a person, especially in the fact-checking process. We know that AI chat bots are fed with Russian disinformation, and also with input from China, USA, India or Pakistan. There are many interests at stake, to influence AI in a way that certain results will come up, and this is something everyone who uses AI must know.  

Critics say that fact-checking can contribute to mistrust in the media at large and thus play into the hands of the wrong actors. How do you deal with this dilemma?  

In our everyday practice, we actually experience quite the opposite. I have been working in fact-checking for five years and now, as head of DW Urdu, one of my tasks is to build up the fact-checking format. We mark all of our work to indicate that it is a fact-checked piece. Because we learned that people trust them differently than regular news articles. 

In our fact checked pieces, we add hyperlinked sources for every fact. We also show sources in our videos. This helps everyone understand where the information comes from. We are very transparent about who our interview partners are and put strong emphasis on diversity. For us, publishing fact-checks is a way to re-build trust with our audience. We also experience this firsthand when we attend conferences or are contacted by schools and universities who request our workshops.  

A second approach is our two-route plan. One route is fact-checking as such, the second is building up media and information literacy. This means, we give people tools to protect themselves against fakes and misinformation. About two months ago, we discovered a great number of very cute-looking, AI-generated animal videos popping up all over the internet. Pets were jumping on a trampoline or opening doorknobs. It looks very innocent at first, but when you take a closer look, you will find this is a way of AI grooming. Innocent AI that is consumed every day, but it makes people less critical about AI being used in a more serious context. We address topics like AI grooming in our videos and explain why this is a problem.  

We don’t just want to say: “There are fakes, we debunked them for you.” Rather, we want to show people where they are affected in their daily lives and give them knowledge and tools to become multipliers of fact-checking.  

What is the greatest challenge for fact-checkers now? 

The most important challenge right now is funding. The situation is bad for journalists in general, and special teams like ours are often affected first when budgets are cut, which is also happening here in Germany. We need to draw more attention to the fact that both independent journalism, as well as fact-checking, are in danger. If we cannot do our job, disinformation will thrive. So, it is up to every one of us to ask: What can we do to stop this? And politicians have to be aware of what is already happening in other countries and to consider how we can prevent this from happening here. 

How about attacks on fact-checkers? How do you protect yourselves? 

We notice that depending on the topic, there is an increase of troll comments under our articles, for instance when we produce a piece about Russian disinformation. Sometimes these claims are forwarded to our legal department. But on a personal level, we have luckily experienced very few attacks so far. Of course, we are very careful and always ask ourselves questions such as: How do I stay safe online? How can I protect myself and my family? 

How will fact-checking develop in the future? What challenges are ahead? 

AI will remain relevant for the near future, because people routinely go to AI chatbots for everyday questions, as well as for fact checks. This is why our work in media literacy is so important: People must know where they can find reliable sources, that you should always include multiple sources and that AI chat bots can be manipulative, depending on the data they have been fed.  

I don’t think that we will be replaced by AI in the near future, simply because there are many things AI cannot do in a reliable way: checking facts, critically going through data and drawing conclusions. One trend I see as trainer and journalist is that many news organizations across the globe include fact- checking in their work, but not as a special department. Disinformation is polluting every department, be it sports, the environment or news. And it is easy, even for journalists, to fall victim to disinformation. AI-generated materials such as images and videos are increasingly delivered to media and news agencies. So, everyone working in media has to be able to question the material they receive. That’s why I think the major trend is that fact-checking and analysis will become relevant across the board, as opposed to just within individual units in news organizations.

At this year's Global Media Forum in Bonnon June 23 and 24, Rachel Baig will be a speaker for the session "Fact-checking under pressure: How to build trust and resilience in a post-factual, polarized world?".