如何追求真相：臺灣事實查核運動的發展與實踐

Abstract

本研究旨在分析其事實查核的發展脈絡、實踐形式及其在實踐過程中，對於「真相」所採取的觀點。本文以具有專業工作者取向的臺灣事實查核中心（TFC），以及主要是由群眾協作來進行事實查核的「Cofacts真的假的」等兩個不同脈絡的事實查核實踐作為案例。本文首先指出該兩組織如何延續及修正台灣過往媒體改革運動及公民科技運動的理念：前者主要是將媒體改革運動從「媒體」中心轉向「公眾」中心，強調事實查核是為了回應公眾需求及追求公共討論的事實基礎；而後者主要是依循協作的理念，強調設計出兼容多元與差異的群眾事實查核參與機制。 本研究繼而指出，這兩種不同事實查核運動的發展脈絡，也影響了其事實查核的目標、實踐策略及真相觀： TFC認為當前不實資訊衝擊了公眾溝通賴以維繫的「事實」基礎，故傾向藉由追求多重消息來源間的交疊「共識」，為跨主體間重新建立起理想的溝通環境。但 Cofacts則傾向認為當前不實資訊的問題，在於公眾將片面的傳言資訊視為是唯一事實，導致其未能獲得社會中的多元觀點來深化對議題的理解，故其致力於藉由協作驗證的機制，讓多元觀點得以自由呈現、肯認一則傳言可以擁有多重結果與詮釋。 綜觀兩者對於真相的立場，本文指出：TFC雖在本體論上肯認了「實在論」的立場，認為普遍與基礎的客觀事實是公共討論及事實查核的目標，但在實踐層次上卻也肯認其查核結果僅是在有限資訊下所獲得的「暫定」結論。Cofacts則因強調「多元觀點」，認為公共對話並不在於追求單一共識。換言之，本文認為，兩者對真相本體論上的立場雖有不同見解，但在追求真相的實踐上則皆具有實用主義的色彩，重視關於真相的論證與形成之實踐過程，而非意在聲稱其查核結果等同客觀真相。

This study aims to examine the development of the fact-checking movement in Taiwan and to analyze the standpoint of fact-checking practices on 'truth'. This paper takes the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center (TFC) and 'Cofacts' as examples. This paper firstly points out how these two organizations have retained and revised the ideas of Taiwan's past media reform and civil technology movements. It is argued that the former mainly shifted the media reform movement from a media-center to a public-center, emphasizing that the purpose of fact-checking is to pursue a factual basis for public discussions. The latter is mainly based on the concept of collaboration, highlighting the design of participatory mechanisms of fact-checking that accommodates differences. This study demonstrates that the development of these two different fact-checking movements influences the goals, practice strategies, and perceptions of truth. For TFC, misinformation has impacted the 'factual' basis of public discussion; accordingly, it tends to pursue overlapping 'consensus' among multiple sources to re-establish an ideal environment for cross-subject communication. However, for Cofacts, the problem of misinformation is that the public perceive the one-sided information as the only truth, which prevents the public from obtaining multiple perspectives to deepen their understanding of public issues. Therefore, Cofacts is committed to collaborative verification mechanisms that allow the free expression of multiple perspectives, recognizing that a single story can have multiple outcomes and interpretations. Based on the above analysis, this paper argues that TFC adopts an ontological realism and believes that fact-checking should pursue universal and fundamental objective facts. However, at the practical level, TFC believes that fact-checking results are only 'temporary conclusions' with limited information. On the other hand, Cofacts emphasizes the co-existence of multiple perspectives and believes that the goal of public dialogue is not the pursuit of single consensus. In other words, although TFC and Cofacts have different views at the ontological level, they are both pragmatic, adopting practical approaches to finding truth, rather than claiming that their findings are equivalent to the objective truth.