Fact-checking agencies assess and score the truthfulness of politicians’ claims to foster their electoral accountability. Fact-checking is sometimes presented as a quasi-scientific activity, based on reproducible verification protocols that would guarantee an unbiased assessment. We will study these verification protocols and discuss under which conditions fact-checking could achieve effective reproducibility. Through an analysis of the methodological norms in verification protocols, we will argue that achieving reproducible fact-checking may not help much in rendering politicians accountable. Political fact-checkers do not deliver either reproducibility or accountability today, and there are reasons to think that traditional quality journalism may serve liberal democracies better.

事实核查机构对政客言论的真实性进行评估和评分，以加强他们的选举责任。事实核查有时被视为一种准科学活动，基于可重复的验证协议，以保证公正的评估。我们将研究这些验证协议，并讨论在哪些条件下事实核查可以实现有效的再现性。通过对验证协议中方法规范的分析，我们认为实现可重复的事实核查可能对政治家的问责没有多大帮助。如今，政治事实核查人员无法提供可重复性或问责制，并且有理由认为传统的高质量新闻可能会更好地为自由民主国家服务。