How The New York Times fact-checks political candidates

In quizzes and trivia, truth or lie doesn’t matter, but in the world of politics, things are rarely so clear-cut.

“Murky” is how Linda Chiu, a fact-checker for nearly a decade, describes many of the claims she vets. Chiu is The New York Times’ liaison for political debates, party conventions, rallies and the State of the Union. Her job is to sift through campaign rhetoric and outright lies to uncover the truth.

Here are answers to questions about how our fact-checking works.

How do we evaluate what candidates say?

• truth. The assertion is factually accurate.

• This requires context. While this assertion is superficially accurate, it misses important context.

• This is an exaggeration. The claim exaggerates or understates the facts.

• This is misleading. The allegation contains a kernel of truth, but it distorts the facts.

• error. That assertion is factually false.

• Evidence for this is lacking. There is no evidence.

“There’s a difference between ‘exaggeration’ and ‘misleading,’ and it requires context, so I want to be clear on that point to readers,” Chiu said. According to Chiu, it’s the misleading statements that are the most “harmful.” “They have the appearance of truth, but they’re used in a very distorted and deceptive way,” Chiu said.

Ambiguous statements fall into the “context needed” category. When a candidate gives an incomplete explanation of their role in a bill or leaves out some of the history of events, we give readers the full picture.

How do we choose which claims to fact-check?

There are several factors to consider before deciding what to fact-check, said Margaret Ho, the Washington bureau editor who oversees the process.

The frequency and popularity of a claim also plays a role: We pay close attention to news moments where people are trading claims and counterarguments, and we also look for instances where unsubstantiated information has become commonplace.

“If something is trending on social media, we check it out,” Ho said.

Readers can also suggest claims they’d like to see fact-checked by emailing us at factcheck@nytimes.com .

How do we find facts that disprove a claim?

Our own coverage plays a big role. In addition to teams of reporters covering President Biden and President Donald J. Trump, we have many reporters with deep expertise on the issues. Because we cover the campaign in depth, we can quickly point readers to easy-to-understand articles and videos. We also point readers to competitors (e.g., The Washington Post, Politico) who may be researching certain topics in greater depth.

But for the most part, we direct readers to the sources of our own reporting: the data, studies and other research we rely on.

Is the candidate claiming that he kept gas prices low while in office? Let’s take a look. What are the statistics on the Southwest border? Here’s what U.S. Customs and Border Protection has to say. We also provide links to nonpartisan organizations that specialize in public policy and reputable research groups like the Pew Research Center and the National Bureau of Economic Research.

How does this work during a live event?

On debate night, dozens of reporters and editors are following the proceedings, listening closely to every word the candidates say. Many of the reporters have covered Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump for years and are well-versed on issues like immigration, abortion and the economy, so they can quickly distinguish fact from hyperbole. Editors also keep an eye on questions popping up online, and Mr. Chiu monitors email inquiries.

Preparation also plays a key role.

“In the weeks leading up to a debate, I comb through the candidates’ campaigns, rallies, social media, and TV and radio news interviews to see what topics come up most frequently,” Chiu says. “That candidates will repeat themselves over and over is nothing new to anyone who covers politics.”

Are all fact checks the same?

We approach debates, rallies, State of the Union addresses and other events with an unbiased approach to fact-checking, evaluating claims from all sides of the political spectrum and all candidates.

Both Trump and Biden deserve fact-checking for their positions, but Trump has made false and misleading claims over the years, so we’ve fact-checked him more than any other candidate, and we’ve reported on his dishonest tactics.

Biden’s fact checks revealed the differences in the candidates’ approaches to the truth.

“We’ve been pretty upfront about the two and how each compares to the other,” Ho says. “We’re careful not to draw false equivalences.”

They are politicians. Don’t people know that they love to distort the facts?

Our fact-checking answer to that question is… true, but it’s our job to separate fact from fiction.

“The point is not to criticize politicians – ‘Hey, you lied’ – but to educate readers on why it is so. If someone is making a claim about the economy, I think it’s important for people to understand the numbers behind it. It’s the claim that matters, not the person,” Chiu said.

Chiu monitors social media posts, speeches and campaign ads for misinformation, but live events like the presidential debates draw the most attention.

“In a race like this, things move so quickly that both candidates are hurling statistics and arguments at each other to bolster their case for why they should be president,” she said. “It’s really important for us to let our readers know that the evidence they’re presenting to support their case as a candidate is factually incorrect and needs to be corrected.”

“In a democracy, readers should be equipped with such knowledge.”