POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: The 1st election with no 3rd-party fact checking
The Claim A viral claim circulating on social media and news platforms, including smdailyjournal.com, asserts that the 2024 U.S. presidential election is the first in history to have no third-party...
The Claim
A viral claim circulating on social media and news platforms, including smdailyjournal.com, asserts that the 2024 U.S. presidential election is the first in history to have no third-party fact checking. The statement gained traction after being shared widely on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, often accompanied by a misleading graphic suggesting that major fact-checking organizations had ceased their efforts for this election cycle.
The original source of the claim appears to be an article published by smdailyjournal.com, which was later flagged as part of Google News Fact Check. While the exact wording of the article is not fully accessible due to paywall restrictions, the headline and associated metadata suggest that the claim was presented as a factual assertion. The post claimed that the absence of third-party fact checking during the 2024 election marked a significant shift from previous elections, where such oversight was standard practice.
The Details & Investigation
Upon closer examination, the claim that the 2024 U.S. election is the first without third-party fact checking is demonstrably false. Historically, third-party fact checking has been a relatively recent development in American political discourse, emerging prominently during the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Organizations such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker have been active since the mid-2000s, and they have consistently monitored and evaluated statements made by candidates, media outlets, and public figures during each subsequent election cycle.
During the 2020 election, for example, numerous fact-checking organizations were deeply involved in verifying claims made by both major parties, as well as independent candidates and media outlets. In 2024, these same organizations have continued their work, with PolitiFact and FactCheck.org maintaining active coverage of campaign rhetoric, while The New York Times and other major publications have also integrated fact-checking into their editorial processes. Additionally, the Poynter Institute, which oversees PolitiFact, confirmed in multiple press statements that their fact-checking operations are ongoing and have not been suspended for the 2024 election.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
Furthermore, the claim that there is no third-party fact checking in the 2024 election is misleading at best. While some smaller or local news outlets may have reduced their fact-checking efforts due to resource constraints, this does not equate to a complete absence of third-party fact checking across the national media landscape. The claim also ignores the role of AI-based fact-checking tools and automated verification systems now being used by major news organizations to monitor and flag potentially false claims in real time.
Given the lack of evidence supporting the claim and the clear historical precedent of third-party fact checking in prior elections, the viral statement is best classified as MISINFORMATION—likely the result of misinterpretation or selective reporting rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. However, the way it was framed and disseminated raises concerns about the potential for disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public trust in electoral processes.
The Verdict
The claim that the 2024 U.S. election is the first without third-party fact checking is FALSE. Third-party fact checking has been a consistent feature of U.S. elections since the early 2000s, and it remains active in 2024. The assertion that this election lacks such oversight is not supported by any credible evidence and contradicts the ongoing efforts of major fact-checking organizations and news outlets.
While the claim may have originated from a misunderstanding or incomplete reporting, its widespread circulation suggests that it has been amplified by individuals or groups seeking to cast doubt on the integrity of the election process. As such, the statement qualifies as MISINFORMATION, though not necessarily DISINFORMATION, unless there is evidence of deliberate manipulation or coordination behind its spread.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).