<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Baptista_et_al_2022a</id>
		<title>Baptista et al 2022a - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Baptista_et_al_2022a"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?title=Baptista_et_al_2022a&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-05-11T03:05:06Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?title=Baptista_et_al_2022a&amp;diff=270263&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Scipediacontent: Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 442144464 to Baptista et al 2022a</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?title=Baptista_et_al_2022a&amp;diff=270263&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2023-02-02T11:41:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Scipediacontent moved page &lt;a href=&quot;/public/Draft_Content_442144464&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;Draft Content 442144464&quot;&gt;Draft Content 442144464&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;/public/Baptista_et_al_2022a&quot; title=&quot;Baptista et al 2022a&quot;&gt;Baptista et al 2022a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class=&quot;diff diff-contentalign-left&quot; data-mw=&quot;interface&quot;&gt;
				&lt;tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'&gt;
				&lt;td colspan='1' style=&quot;background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;&quot;&gt;← Older revision&lt;/td&gt;
				&lt;td colspan='1' style=&quot;background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;&quot;&gt;Revision as of 11:41, 2 February 2023&lt;/td&gt;
				&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td colspan='2' style='text-align: center;' lang='en'&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;mw-diff-empty&quot;&gt;(No difference)&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Scipediacontent</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?title=Baptista_et_al_2022a&amp;diff=270262&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Scipediacontent: Created page with &quot; == Abstract ==  Fact-checking is a relatively recent journalistic genre in Portugal that has been growing in recent years, alternately viewed as a journalism reform movement...&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.colloquiam.com/wd/index.php?title=Baptista_et_al_2022a&amp;diff=270262&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2023-02-02T11:41:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Created page with &amp;quot; == Abstract ==  Fact-checking is a relatively recent journalistic genre in Portugal that has been growing in recent years, alternately viewed as a journalism reform movement...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fact-checking is a relatively recent journalistic genre in Portugal that has been growing in recent years, alternately viewed as a journalism reform movement or criticized as inefficient and idealistic. Our study is a comparative analysis of the output of the Portuguese fact-checkers Observador and Polígrafo in the 2019–2022 elections to determine whether their coverage is politically biased. Performing a quantitative content analysis of all fact-checking articles on national politics (n = 265) published during the campaign for the parliamentary elections, our results show that fact-checking activity has increased in the last elections. These data may indicate that fact-checking agencies have increased their capacity and resources, but may also suggest a greater presence of subjectivity and deception in Portuguese political discourse. The focus of Portuguese fact-checkers is statements produced during political debates (70%), while social media verification is disregarded. Our most significant finding is the lack of evidence of partisan or political bias in the selection of the assessed statements. Both fact-checkers do not show a tendency to check statements that are more or less anti- or pro-government and/or statements that are ideologically favorable to the left wing or the right wing. Therefore, our findings confirm the high level of professionalism and impartiality of Portuguese fact-checkers evidenced in other studies, and demonstrate that the Portuguese citizen’s skepticism toward the practice has no foundation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Full document ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pdf&amp;gt;Media:Draft_Content_442144464-87041-9058-document.pdf&amp;lt;/pdf&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Scipediacontent</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>