This April marks the seventh anniversary of the Taiwan FactCheck Center (TFC). In these seven years, the TFC has dedicated itself to fulfilling Taiwanese society’s need for accurate and trustworthy information. Understanding readers’ experiences and expectations regarding the TFC’s fact-checking work is crucial. To gain insights, the TFC conducted a reader survey in late 2024. This survey not only enhances the TFC’s understanding of its audience but also reveals how Taiwanese readers engage with and utilize fact-checking reports.
According to the survey, 96.7% of respondents agree or strongly agree that TFC’s fact-checking reports help correct the false information they encounter. Additionally, 85.15% believe these reports are useful for clarifying complex issues; 57% express that the fact-checking reports change their perspectives on various topics. Among the categories of issues that TFC readers want more fact-checking on are topics relevant to daily life, politics and policy, and health. The survey also reveals that LINE, a popular messaging app among Taiwanese, has become the primary source for TFC readers to access the latest fact-checking reports.
The TFC conducted an online survey of TFC readers older than 13 from November 26 to December 7, 2024. The survey asked readers about their background information, including their age range and education level, their evaluation of the format of fact-checking reports, how they utilize those reports, and their suggestions for enhancing the reports. Data and responses were collected via social media platforms, messaging apps, and the TFC Chinese-language online newsletters. This survey includes 687 respondents with 680 valid replies.
The TFC readers’ profile
The survey results indicate that TFC readers belong to various age groups, with the 40-49 age group leading the list at 20.94%, followed by the 60-69 group at 17.70%, and the 30-39 group at 17.11%. The 20-29 age group accounts for only 13.27%. In terms of gender and education level, the results show that the majority of readers are males (55.44%), and 75.5% of them have a bachelor’s degree, with 25.77% having a master’s degree.
Overall, TFC readers represent an older demographic with higher education levels. The survey also asks whether readers have preferences for any political parties. 51.47% of the respondents say that they do not have any preferences. However, among those who say they do, 33.09% identify themselves as supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party, 5.29% of the Kuomintang (the Nationalist Party), and 4.12% of the Taiwan People’s Party.
How do the TFC readers access fact-checking information?
An important goal of this survey is to understand how TFC readers utilize fact-checking reports. One of the survey questions asks respondents how they verify information. 80.59% of the respondents indicate that they use search engines to find information when encountering suspicious claims, while 75.29% mention “looking for reports from fact-checking organizations” as their choice. 37.65% of the respondents state they search for information on social media.
Currently, TFC readers can access fact-checking reports through various methods. In addition to using social media such as LINE, Facebook, or Instagram, readers can also visit the TFC website or subscribe to TFC newsletters. Additionally, the TFC has authorized online news portals, such as Yahoo! News and LINE Today, to share TFC articles.
According to the survey, most users access TFC articles from the TFC LINE social media account (71.47%). Another 36.91% of respondents reach TFC content through search results from search engines, while 32.31% access it from social media platforms. Only 28.24% of respondents say they actively visit the TFC website to read articles. These results confirm the importance of fact-checking organizations to continue engaging with readers through LINE and social media actively.
The TFC also provides a bot feature via LINE, enabling readers to report “suspicious rumors” and request fact-checking assistance from the bot online. More than half of the readers (55.44%) report that they have alerted the LINE bot about suspicious rumors, with 34.85% indicating they would communicate with the bot whenever they encounter dubious information and 11.47% stating they file a report to the bot at least once a month.
Readers’ evaluation of fact-checks
For fact-checks, there have been discussions on how fact-checkers select the claims to verify and whether the selection aligns with readers’ expectations (note 1). The survey reveals that 71.18% of respondents agree or strongly agree with the selection of claims for fact-checking by the TFC.
Additionally, 76.62% of readers believe that the current length of fact-checking reports is appropriate, while 72.61% agree or strongly agree that the reports are easy to understand. Interestingly, when reading fact-checking reports, 43.53% of the readers prefer to choose which sections to read based on the topics rather than reading the entire article.
Another issue concerning fact-checks is the impact of labels that assign a verdict to a claim and summarize the level of accuracy after fact-checking. For instance, the Taiwan FactCheck Center uses labels such as “False,” “Partially False,” and “Clarification” to indicate the final conclusions of fact-checking reports. Some academic studies suggest that labels from professional fact-checkers assist audiences in evaluating information (note 2).
The TFC survey also inquired whether participants believe that fact-checks should clearly label the results as “false” or “correct.” A significant 89.26% of respondents indicate that “labels like ‘false,’ ‘partially false,’ and ‘clarification’ help readers understand the fact.” However, 88.91% of respondents also say that when the issue is complex, they are comfortable with the report omitting a label and instead focusing on providing more context and background information.
The results reveal that while labels are beneficial for readers assessing the accuracy of information, readers also expect more contextual information to enhance their understanding of the events.
Readers want more fact-checking relevant to daily life and politics
This survey also inquires how the TFC can enhance its fact-checks and which topics readers want to see covered more frequently. Regarding the enhancement of fact-checking reports, the majority of respondents express a desire for increased fact-checking related to current events (53.09%). Meanwhile, 49.71% would appreciate more thorough explanations of labels (such as why fact-checkers classify statements as “false” or “partially false”). Additionally, 38.68% welcome more visuals in the fact-checking reports, and 35.15% seek more verification of news about politicians or their statements.
Regarding the categories of topics that readers expect fact-checking to cover, issues affecting daily life, such as scams and traffic rules, are the most anticipated by participants, with 73.97% of respondents expressing a desire for more fact-checking in these areas. The second most popular topic is politics and policy, supported by 68.24% of respondents. Survey participants also highly anticipated topics relevant to health, international matters, and cross-strait relations (between Taiwan and China).
This survey reveals that while political fact-checking sparks more debates among the public, individuals still seek more verified information in this area. Considering the impacts of fact-checking, the finding that readers prefer increased political fact-checking is particularly intriguing. Although studies indicate that the effectiveness of political fact-checking can be influenced by other factors, such as the audience’s preexisting ideologies and beliefs, people still feel the need for fact-checking on political issues to understand the situation and make informed decisions (note 3). In this TFC survey, we observe a similar trend among Taiwanese readers.
Note 1: Academic studies show that fact-checking organizations usually choose newsworthy or politically important claims. For the TFC, the selection criteria include whether the claim has a significant impact on society and whether it has spread widely within society. See Graves, Lucas. “Anatomy of a Fact Check: Objective Practice and the Contested Epistemology of Fact Checking.” Communication Culture and Critique 10, no. 3 (October 27, 2016): 518–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12163; Su, Chiaoning and Li, Wei-Ping, “Excavating Truth: Assessing Citizen-Led Fact-Checking Practices in Taiwan,” In the book Resistance in the Era of Nationalisms Performing Identities in Taiwan and Hong Kong US–China Relations in the Age of Globalization, edited by Hsin-I Cheng and Hsin-i Sydney Yueh. Michigan State University Press, 2023.
Note 2: See Jia, Chenyan, and Taeyoung Lee. “Journalistic Interventions Matter: Understanding How Americans Perceive Fact-Checking Labels.” Misinformation Review, April 11, 2024. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-138; MIT Sloan. “Warning Labels From Fact Checkers Work — Even if You Don’t Trust Them | MIT Sloan,” September 2, 2024. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/warning-labels-fact-checkers-work-even-if-you-dont-trust-them.
Note 3: Rich, Timothy S., Ian Milden, and Mallory Treece Wagner. “Research Note: Does the Public Support Fact-Checking Social Media? It Depends Who and How You Ask.” Misinformation Review, October 29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-46.Walter, Nathan, Jonathan Cohen, R. Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag. “Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom.” Political Communication 37, no. 3 (October 24, 2019): 350–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894.
Wei-Ping Li is a research fellow at the Taiwan FactCheck Center.