Listen to the article
Brazilian fact-checking initiative Project Comprova has fundamentally changed its approach to combating misinformation, moving away from traditional labeling systems that categorize content as “false,” “misleading,” “satire,” or “proven.”
The collaborative initiative, which brings together 42 media outlets across Brazil, made this strategic shift after recognizing that simply refuting false claims is insufficient in today’s complex information landscape.
“We realized that simply refuting allegations is not enough,” explained José Antonio Lima, Project Comprova’s assistant editor. “Fact-checks now investigate not only the evidence and claims of viral posts, but also the creators of the content and their interests, as well as the tactics used to persuade people and lead them to believe what was published.”
The project’s leadership concluded that traditional labels were creating barriers between fact-checkers and audiences most vulnerable to misinformation. “The labels ended up acting as an obstacle to the connection between verification and the public,” Lima noted. “We stopped using them precisely after we concluded that people have an aversion to content that contradicts their worldview.”
Implemented after four months of testing, the changes represent a complete methodological overhaul of the initiative that launched in 2018. Comprova’s verification process remains rigorous: suspicious content is distributed to volunteer fact-checkers from partner media organizations, with each piece typically verified by three journalists from different member outlets. Reports undergo peer review and are only published after validation from at least three additional participating newsrooms.
Beyond eliminating labels, Comprova has also transformed how headlines are written. The new approach favors “truth-affirming” headlines that avoid reproducing false information, even when the purpose is to debunk it.
This transition hasn’t been without challenges. “The biggest challenge of the new guidelines has been adapting the thinking and the way of constructing headlines and texts to explain to the reader that it is a piece of misinformation without saying that it is false,” said reporter Gabriella Braz, who works on the Comprova team from newspaper Correio Braziliense.
The revised methodology goes deeper than textual changes. Fact-checkers now conduct comprehensive analyses of the sources of misinformation, examining the pages producing questionable content, the discourse used by these profiles, headline and caption creation techniques, and patterns across shared posts.
“Because the misinformation chain itself is more complex today, this has required a much more reflective process from us,” Braz explained. “During this process, we’ve seen many common characteristics, such as the use of warnings, ‘urgent,’ content that seems alarming. These characteristics can serve as a warning so that people can learn to identify misinformation over time.”
The shift has also prompted fact-checkers to develop greater empathy toward those who believe misinformation. “Just because we’re fact-checkers doesn’t mean we don’t sometimes glance at something and think, ‘Wow, I could have missed this if I hadn’t had the habit of researching,'” Braz added.
Information researcher Taís Seibt, who has studied fact-checking in Brazil for a decade, sees merit in Comprova’s new approach. “Abandoning labels is a possible path. I don’t know if it’s precisely the future of fact-checking, but it’s a possibility to mitigate resistance to correction,” she said. “If you share information and someone responds with a fact-check indicating it was false, you feel exposed and may react to this exposure.”
Seibt points to growing recognition that isolated fact-checks have limited effectiveness against established misinformation narratives. This realization has increased interest in “prebunking” strategies that prepare audiences to recognize misinformation tactics before encountering specific false claims.
Looking forward, Comprova aims to expand its capabilities to anticipate misinformation, including helping people identify AI-generated content. The project recently began verifying online scams as part of its broader mission.
“We also intend to reinforce to the public the importance of being aware of the persuasion tactics used to spread misinformation and how algorithms work,” Lima added. “The goal is to contribute to creating a healthier information environment, something that depends not only on initiatives like Comprova, but also on public authorities, the private sector, society in general, and every citizen.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This pivot by Project Comprova makes a lot of sense. Simply refuting false claims isn’t enough anymore – fact-checkers need to dig deeper into the sources and motivations behind misinformation. I’m glad they recognized the limitations of traditional labeling systems.
Agreed. Fact-checking has to evolve beyond binary ‘true/false’ assessments. Exploring the full context and tactics used to spread misinformation is a more holistic and impactful approach.
I’m curious to see how this new strategy plays out for the Brazilian fact-checking initiative. Abandoning labels in favor of a more investigative, audience-focused approach is an ambitious shift. It will be interesting to track the project’s impact and learnings going forward.
Yes, it’s an experimental approach that could set an interesting precedent for fact-checking initiatives worldwide. I’m hopeful it will lead to more nuanced and effective ways of countering misinformation.
This is an interesting development in the world of fact-checking. I’m curious to see how Project Comprova’s new strategy unfolds and whether it can serve as a model for other initiatives looking to combat misinformation more effectively.
Absolutely. Fact-checking has to keep evolving to stay relevant, and this move away from simplistic labeling systems seems like a step in the right direction. It will be worth monitoring the project’s progress and impact.
The shift away from simplistic ‘true/false’ labels is a smart move. Exploring the broader context around viral misinformation, including the creators and their tactics, will likely resonate better with audiences. Fact-checking needs to evolve to stay relevant in the digital age.
Absolutely. Providing more context and understanding the full picture behind misleading claims is crucial. Labels can come across as dismissive – this new approach seems more constructive.
Abandoning simplistic labels is a smart move by the Brazilian fact-checking initiative. Audiences can be resistant to content that contradicts their worldviews, so a more nuanced, investigative approach is likely to be more effective. Kudos to them for adapting their strategy.
Yes, this shift reflects an understanding that fact-checking needs to be more than just debunking. Examining the actors and motivations behind misinformation is crucial to combat its spread.
I appreciate Project Comprova’s willingness to adapt their approach. Focusing on the context and tactics behind misinformation, rather than just refuting false claims, is a more holistic and impactful way to tackle this challenge. It will be interesting to see how this new strategy performs.
Agreed. Fact-checkers need to be nimble and responsive to changing information landscapes. This shift toward a more nuanced, investigative model could set an important precedent for the industry.
This is an interesting pivot by the Brazilian fact-checking initiative. Abandoning labels and focusing more on the source and tactics behind misinformation makes a lot of sense in the current information landscape. Connecting with vulnerable audiences is key to combating the spread of false claims.
I agree, traditional labeling systems can create more distance between fact-checkers and the public. A more nuanced, investigative approach that examines the origins and motivations behind misinformation is likely more effective.
The Brazilian fact-checking initiative’s decision to move away from traditional labeling systems is a bold and welcome move. Misinformation is a complex issue, and simplistic categorizations often fall short. I’m eager to see how their new, more contextual approach plays out.
Yes, this pivot demonstrates an understanding that combating misinformation requires a more sophisticated, multi-faceted strategy. Focusing on the sources and tactics behind viral falsehoods is a smart way to tackle the problem at its roots.