Survey

First, we surveyed fact-checking professionals who work in Spanish. To do this, we prepared a census of active verification initiatives in Spanish from the existing bibliography ( ; Vizoso and Vázquez-Herrero, 2019) (Sampio & D, 2018) and the databases of Duke Reporters' Lab (2021) and Latam Chequea (2021).

At the time we conducted the census (April 1^st, 2021), the number of active fact-checking platforms in Spanish was 46: 41 of them were located in Latin America, 4 in Spain, and 1 –AFP Factual– had a multinational character.

We sent the questionnaire to all the registered platforms: where possible, we sent it individually to the workers of each of the platforms. When it was not possible to access their email addresses, we sent the questionnaire by email to each agency. After 3 reminder emails, we obtained a response from a total of 52 professionals, which implies a representation of 47% of the total of registered platforms (see Table 1).

Source : Self-made

   For the design of the questionnaire, we used as a guide the set of posed specific objectives and research questions. Specifically, we designed the questionnaire from the following three blocks:

• In the first block, to answer the research questions RQ1 and RQ4, we introduced identifying questions of a demographic and professional nature (age, gender, country of birth, academic background, fact-checking platform in which you work, and professional role you perform in it).

• In a second block, seeking to answer the research questions RQ3 and RQ4, we included questions related to the professional activity of fact-checkers. Thus, in this block, the questions revolved around the skills necessary for fact-checking, verification techniques, collaboration networks, or the configuration of templates.

• In a third and final block, to answer the research question RQ2, we asked the respondents for their opinion and personal vision on the phenomenon of verification. To do this, we questioned their perception of the raison d'être of fact-checking, the need (or not) to establish collaboration networks, the difficulties encountered in the development of their work, and potential proposals for improvement.

Although most of the questions were closed -including the option “others” to avoid non-coverage errors- we interspersed these questions with other multiple-choice and scaled questions, used to know the degree of agreement with different statements. In designing the questionnaire, we took into account the criteria of clarity, brevity, and neutrality. As it is a self-administered survey, we also took into account the order, ease, and agility of the response.

In-depth interviews

In parallel, we conducted 13 in-depth interviews with some of the main voices of Spanish-speaking fact-checking, both from a professional and an academic perspective. To select the professional interviewees, we took into account both their links and their positions of responsibility in the main Spanish-speaking platforms. In the case of academic interviewees, we considered their experience and academic publications related to fact-checking as selection criteria.

We adapted the guide to the two selected profiles: on the one hand, we elaborated a model for the professional interviewees and the other for those of an academic nature. Taking into account the subsequent exploitation of results, we organized both models in equivalent blocks. Specifically:

• Block 1: Profile of the interviewee.

• Block 2 (RQ2): Questions related to disinformation and its impact on contemporary societies.

• Block 3 (RQ3 and RQ4): Questions related to fact-checking, its difficulties, and its opportunities in the Spanish-speaking panorama.

• Block 4 (RQ1 and RQ4): Questions related to the need for specific training in fact-checking professionals.

• Block 5 (RQ1): Questions related to the profile of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers.

The profile of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

Taking as a reference the previous bibliography on the subject ( ; Vizoso and Vázquez-Herrero, 2019) (Sampio & D, 2018) and the databases of verification platforms consulted for this research, we have seen that fact-checking in Spanish is a booming phenomenon, as is its global equivalent (Graves & Cherubini, 2016). This is demonstrated by the initiatives collected in our census and the interviews carried out with different professionals. Surveying Spanish-speaking fact-checkers has allowed us to know the profile of the Spanish-speaking fact-checking professional. We present, below, their most outstanding features:

Demographic profile of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

Regarding the age of the fact-checkers, we appreciate that the professionals are eminently young. The majority (73.1% of the total respondents) are under 40 years of age (see Chart 1), with the majority (42.3% of the total) being the group between 30 and 39 years old. Indeed, this young profile fits in with the statements of the interviewees about fact-checking as a new professional outlet for journalism, a phenomenon on the rise linked to social networks, digital journalism, and new technologies.

Source : Self-made

Regarding gender, we see that there is an equitable distribution: 53.8% of those surveyed are men and 46.2% are women. Regarding the country of birth, we appreciate that fact-checking is a fairly widespread phenomenon in Spanish-speaking countries; that is, its development is not limited to a few countries: professionals from 19 of the 21 Spanish-speaking countries (90.5%) are represented in the sample.

We have also been interested in the training and specialization of fact-checking professionals. Understanding fact-checking as a journalistic phenomenon (Graves & Cherubini, 2016), we consider it relevant to know the relationship of those who are professionally engaged in fact-checking with the academic programs of journalistic and communicative training.

In this way, regarding academic training, we can see that the fact-checker is a qualified profile in the Hispanic context: all respondents indicate that they have higher degrees. Looking particularly at the specialization in fact-checking, we see that 48.1% of the total respondents, state that they have also received some type of specific training in this regard.

Source : Self-made

On the other hand, if we look at thematic specialization, we appreciate that 40.4% of those surveyed state that they are not specialized in a specific subject, while 21.2% indicate that they are specialized in more than one subject. This high percentage shows us the interdisciplinary and multi-thematic nature of fact-checking, despite its indispensable link with political communication, political journalism, and the verification of public discourse (Luengo & García-Marín, 2020; Uscinski & Butler, 2013). Precisely, 23.1% of those surveyed indicate that they are specialized in these topics. Other minority specializations are those related to gender, economy, migration, health and environment, or communication issues.

Source : Self-made

Professional profile of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

The results of the survey revealed that 30.8% are directors or founders of the platforms; 21.2%, publishers; 11.5%, section heads, and 36.5%, editors.

Source: Self-made

The high rate of directors compared to other professional categories could be explained by the small size of the workforce that most Spanish-speaking fact-checkers have in Latin America, mentioned as a characteristic element of Latin American fact-checking by the founder of Chequeado, Laura Zommer. In this sense, we see that 44% of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers work on platforms with fewer than 6 workers. 25% do so on medium-size platforms (between 7 and 15 workers); 19% on medium-large platforms (between 15 and 30), and just 12% on large platforms (more than 30).

Source: Self-made

Vision on fact-checking of Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

Regarding the particular vision of fact-checking that Spanish-speaking professionals have, we have analyzed two types of issues: first, those related to the skills necessary to verify; and, secondly, those related to the perception of the extent to which fact-checking is linked to the current social and media context.

Competencies required for fact-checking

For 94.2% of those surveyed, journalism training is the main competence. To a lesser extent, the domain of big data (essential for 71.2% of the sample) and the management of social networks (necessary for 44.2% of those surveyed) are also cited. The data for the entire sample can be seen in the following chart:

Source: Self-made

In this sense, and as already stated by Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007) or Amorós García (2019), some of the interviewed professionals also point to the intrinsic link between fact-checking and journalism: “Unquestionably, fact-checkers are journalists, but, above all, that journalists are fact-checkers” (Jiménez-Cruz, 2020); "[Fact-checking] is now closely linked to journalism, but it will be increasingly linked to artificial intelligence" (Redondo, 2020).

Academic experts in fact-checking also point to this link with journalism: "It is a task that has always been done in the history of journalism and is natural to journalistic work" (Carvajal, 2020); "It is something that has always existed, which is called verification and which is a substantial part of what should be understood as one of the obligations of any journalistic medium" (Rojas-Torrijos, 2020).

Linking fact-checking with the current social and media context

Asked about the link between fact-checking and the current social and media ecosystem, the respondents mostly agree with the need for fact-checking to deal with the problems unleashed in the new media communication processes. Respondents consider that fact-checking has positive effects on the quality and veracity of political discourse and information flows. They also declare, in a majority way, that they understand fact-checking as a useful tool in times of crisis.

Statement 1: "Fact-checking increases the costs of lying in politics"

Statement 2: "Fact-checking improves the quality of public discourse"

Statement 3: "Fact-checking improves the quality of information that citizens receive"

Statement 4: "Fact-checking controls the quality of public discourse in times of crisis (natural disasters, pandemics, attacks...)”

Source: Self-made

This idea that fact-checking is a key tool in controlling political information, public discourse, and, in general, the information that reaches audiences, is shared by the interviewed experts. Thus, Clara Jiménez-Cruz (co-founder of Maldita.es) points to the relevance of fact-checking as a tool at the service of citizens:

The reality is that, with the new forms of information consumption, through a mobile device, the internet... the transmission of information has been facilitated but also disinformation and, therefore, it is necessary to relearn how to do that consumption. While we are re-learning how we have to consume and identify what is information and what is not in these new platforms, it is good that we have someone to help us, to give us information about what is real and what is false, and from there, each one makes the decision they make about what they want (Jiménez-Cruz, 2020).

This idea is shared by Eliana Álvarez (co-founder of UyCheck) who points to fact-checking as a journalistic response to a problem of over-information generated by new technologies:

We are at a time where fact-checking is necessary because much more information circulates and at a much greater speed than it did before. Although disinformation and politicians lying, or saying false things, have always existed, now the speed and scope are much greater, but at the same time, it is also relative. It is especially important now because we have the channels and information available to make this verification, before it may not have been so simple (Álvarez, 2020).

Academic experts such as Ramón Salaverría (Universidad de Navarra) point out that fact-checking certifies, on the other hand, some of the deficiencies of current journalism:

I think that fact-checking is actually evidence that we are not doing journalism as well as we should be doing it, because if the journalism carried out by professional media had the professional excellence that is desirable and the Internet platforms had the filters to eliminate the indiscriminate dissemination of fictitious content, fact-checking platforms would not be necessary (Salaverría, 2020).

Along the same lines, Amazeen had pointed out that fact-checking “could be a symptom of the decline of reference journalistic institutions” (2017, p. 5).

On the other hand, we have been interested in knowing the vision that Spanish-speaking fact-checkers have on the link between fact-checking and social networks, an issue that, as we have seen (Cazalens et al., 2018; Graves, 2018), has been studied by the academic bibliography and it is fundamental when it comes to understanding the potential automation of the verification processes.

In this sense, the majority perception that respondents have (98.1%) about the relevance of users as a means of access to hoaxes that circulate on closed social networks, stands out. As the interviewees stated, the Spanish-speaking media context stands out for the use of closed (encrypted) social networks, such as WhatsApp, which is not so common in the Anglo-Saxon world. This was expressed by the co-founder of Maldita.es, Clara Jiménez-Cruz (2020): "Disinformation, in Spanish-speaking countries... is on WhatsApp." Respondents also position themselves in favor of both open social networks (Twitter, Facebook…) and closed ones (WhatsApp, Telegram…) collaborating with verification platforms.

Statement 5: "Users are an important source of access to hoaxes, especially those circulating through closed social networks"

Statement 6: " Open social networks (Twitter, Facebook...) must collaborate with fact-checkers to filter the content that circulates in them or to warn users of the existence of misinformation"

Statement 7: " Closed social networks (WhatsApp, Telegram...) must collaborate with fact-checkers to filter the content that circulates in them or to warn users of the existence of misinformation"

Source: Self-made

The relevance of user collaboration in controlling disinformation is mentioned repeatedly. Jiménez-Cruz herself commented in a seminar for Reuters in May 2020, that “if you want to fight a battle, you need an army”, so that “when we started doing this kind of strategy, we needed to give them a name. We called them ‘malditas’ and ‘malditos’, and at a certain point, we realized that they had started engaging with us” 2. Thus, the initiatives of different Spanish-speaking platforms to establish direct contact channels with their users stand out, such as the ChatBot of Maldita.es (Maldita.es, June 2020) or the possibility of becoming a Chequeado “checker” (Chequeado, 2021).

Level of collaboration between Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

Regarding collaboration between platforms, the co-founder of Chequeado, Laura Zommer, comments that the birth of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) in 2014 is closely linked to this need:

The IFCN… arose at the initiative of the checkers themselves who started to meet informally in 2014… it arose a bit as a need to exchange good practices and also errors. Many organizations had the same challenges, in different countries and with some different contexts, but also with some very common points, because in all countries there are leaders who are not accurate or who do not always tell the truth (Zommer, 2020).

Indeed, there seems to be a certain consensus that disinformation tends to follow a common path in countries with sociopolitical contexts as parallel as those in Latin America. This is also stated by the head of UyCheck, Eliana Álvarez, who goes on to point out that, in many cases, in Latin America, “it was the fact-checking sites that already existed that were promoting the emergence of [initiatives] in other countries” (Álvarez, 2020). Álvarez also affirms that “although there are things that are local, in reality, much of the misinformation that circulates is the same in all countries” (Álvarez, 2020). Something that Laura Zommer (Chequeado) agrees with, indicating that her platform, Chequeado, founded the Latam Chequea network in 2020: “It is an even more informal network than IFCN because it does not have a legal construction. It is a network of practices of organizations that fact-check... in a particular context, in the countries of Latin America” (Zommer, 2020). Zommer herself mentions that the sociopolitical, informational, and communicational framework of Latin America has common difficulties that do not appear in other countries:

In general, in Latin American countries, there are some extra difficulties that are not necessarily found in, in quotation marks, “first world countries”. Not all countries have access to information standards that are properly implemented, or, if they do, they have very large gaps between what the standard says and implementation. Not all countries have good quality data... Additionally, there are some cases where, in certain countries, there is direct persecution of anyone who dares to tell a president, or minister, or official that he is not telling the truth to the citizens... So, we generate this space to exchange some challenges typical of the region (Zommer, 2020).

In Latin American countries, says the director of Chequeado, “not only language unites us, but also some of the particularities of our states, such as greater institutional weakness of our democracies, which we found interesting to be able to articulate to strengthen ourselves” (Zommer, 2020). In general, Eliana Álvarez (UyCheck) adds, “knowing what others are working on greatly alleviates the local work process because it is possible that this hoax or that information that circulates in Uruguay has already been in Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador”; and she comments that “when information is key, it knows no borders, at least in Latin America” (Álvarez, 2020).

If collaboration is essential in the Latin American context, it is also essential for Spanish fact-checkers. Latin American collaborative networks, such as Latam Chequea, also have the participation of Spanish platforms, such as Newtral or Maldita.es (Chequea, 2021), a cooperation that is especially necessary for contexts of global disinformation, such as the coronavirus pandemic, just like Zommer mentioned.

From the Spanish perspective, the co-founder of Maldita.es, Clara Jiménez-Cruz, indicates that collaborative work is essential for new journalistic media, in general. Fact-checking services, like new media, also benefit from cooperation:

Within the world of fact-checking, cooperation is assumed and understood, especially because it is a bit how modern journalism works. With newsrooms being decimated, and when specialized media are getting smaller and smaller... in that environment in which the media are specialized and small, collaboration is necessary to be able to do everything: do big jobs and large-scale research. (Jiménez-Cruz, 2020).

The results reveal that 69.2% of those surveyed claim to have collaborated with other platforms. Of these, 100% have done so with Spanish-speaking platforms, as can be seen in the following chart:

Source: Self-made

Regarding the elements that favor cross-platform collaboration, the respondents especially point to working with similar fact-checking techniques, sharing the same perception about the raison d'être of fact-checking, or belonging to the same international organizations. For 48.1% of those surveyed, sharing the language is relevant when collaborating. Other issues such as geographical proximity, on the other hand, are hardly highlighted.

Source: Self-made

Similarities between Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

To know in-depth the profile of the Hispanic fact-checker, and taking into account previous reflections on the different socio-political contexts –Spanish and Latin American– that divide Spanish-speaking fact-checking (Moreno-Gil et al., 2021), we have set out to compare Spanish and Latin American Spanish-speaking fact-checkers.

We found similarities, fundamentally, around two axes: the demographic profile and the view on the raison d'etre of fact-checking. In general, in both contexts, we see that the fact-checker is a young and qualified profile, a trend that also fits with the features of fact-checking at the international level (Graves & Cherubini, 2016). Spanish-speaking verifiers also share a vision of fact-checking as a global journalistic movement that responds, in turn, to an international media and informational need (Graves & Cherubini, 2016). This axis of similarities allows us to understand, in a particular way, the phenomenon of Spanish-speaking fact-checking as a relevant object of study that, despite the logical differences between two different social and political spaces –Spain and Latin America–, maintains a common core that materializes, as we have seen, in the possibility of collaboration and the development of international cooperation initiatives such as Latam Chequea, among others.

Source: Self-made

Differences between Spanish-speaking fact-checkers

In the same way, we have been interested in knowing what are the main differences between Spanish and Latin American fact-checkers.

Although, as we have seen, the demographic profile of fact-checkers is similar, we found a fundamental difference in terms of the size of the platforms on which they work. Latin American platforms are more numerous and smaller, while in Spain more than half of the platforms are consolidated and have a high number of workers. This is reflected in the census of initiatives that we have prepared, the results of the survey, and in-depth interviews. This difference, which we have outlined above, is reflected in the results of the survey as follows: only 5.3% of Latin American fact-checkers declare that they work on large platforms (30 or more workers), compared to 28.6% of Spanish respondents. The data regarding the group of respondents is expressed in the following chart:

Source: Self-made

As we have seen, this difference is a characteristic element of Latin American fact-checking. In an interview for this research, Laura Zommer (director of Chequeado, Argentina) explained that, in the Latin American context, most of the platforms are very small: “In Latin America, it happens that most of the organizations are organizations of less than five or six people, those who dedicate themselves exclusively to fact-checking” (Zommer, 2020). Indeed, we see that two of the four Spanish platforms surveyed for this research (Newtral and Maldita.es) are among the largest in the number of workers on the Hispanic scene. In this group of platforms with the largest number of workers, there would also be the Argentine Chequeado, which is an exception among the platforms in South America.

On the other hand, we find a fundamental difference in the perception of what requirements are necessary for greater collaboration to take place between the different initiatives. The results of the survey and the in-depth interviews refer us to two contexts of collaboration organized around different axes. Although collaboration between Spain and Latin America is essential, it is also true that the organization and belonging to collaboration networks is much more consolidated in the Latin American context than in the Spanish one (21.1% of Latin American respondents consider these networks fundamental for collaboration, compared to 7.7% of Spaniards). In Spain, among other things, sharing the same work techniques and methodologies is privileged (84.6% of Spaniards consider the similarity of techniques and methodologies as essential to collaborate, compared to 55.3% of Latin Americans). In this regard, Clara Jiménez-Cruz points out:

When we are in a normal situation [not in a pandemic], much of the misinformation is unique to Spain. Then, there is a part that has to do with Europe, in general... it is disinformation that we share because we see the same types [of hoaxes] as our European partners... Usually, [Spanish] political disinformation has nothing to do with Latin America (Jiménez -Cruz, 2020).

In this sense, the collaboration of Spanish fact-checkers is carried out in two directions: on the one hand, within the European framework, with which political and geographical issues are shared; on the other, although to a lesser extent, in the Spanish-speaking context, with which issues of linguistic similarity are shared. This is how the co-founder of Maldita.es puts it:

With the coronavirus, we are seeing a lot of things with Latin America that make a lot of sense, and, in fact, we are in a collaborative project called Latam Chequea with Spanish-speaking and Brazilian fact-checkers in Latin America. And we are in a European project that FullFact and Maldita are coordinating, with the countries most affected [by the coronavirus] in Europe right now (Jiménez-Cruz, 2020).

Indeed, Spain's collaboration with European fact-checking in the framework of the coronavirus pandemic has materialized in initiatives such as the report by AFP, CorrectITV, Pagella Politica, FullFact, and Maldita.es on the circulation of health hoaxes in Europe4.

From the Latin American perspective, Laura Zommer (Chequeado) indicates that collaboration with Spanish platforms in Latam Chequea, within the framework of COVID-19, is understood because “the virus reached Europe earlier than Latin America. For Latin America, it was very relevant that much of the misinformation that was reaching our countries had already passed through Europe, or Asia, or the United States” (Zommer, 2020). Collaboration with Spain, in this case, was of interest because:

Beyond the international network of fact-checkers... not all of our audiences read English, so it seemed important to us that we also generated something to have our response faster every time misinformation appears. We know that time, especially in viral disinformation, is a critical factor: the sooner we react to disinformation, the less chance it has to go further (Zommer, 2020).

Desirée García (EFE Verifica) explains that language is a key factor: "Many contents, by circulating in the same language, go viral very quickly both in Latin America and Spain" and, despite this, she agrees that the Spanish disinformation is especially linked to Europe:

We are also subjected [in Spain] to another type of misinformation that, perhaps, Latin America does not suffer as much, which is the one that comes mainly from actors that the European Union itself has identified as destabilizing (García-Pruñonosa, 2020).