Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68, No. 4, pp.119-157
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2024
Received 02 Feb 2024 Accepted 29 Jul 2024 Revised 02 Aug 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.4.004

인공지능 팩트체크와 ‘사실성’의 기술사회적 정의

이정현** ; 박소영***
**중앙대학교 인문콘텐츠연구소 HK연구교수 maryjlee1205@gmail.com
***조선대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 조교수 sy.park@chosun.ac.kr
Artificial Intelligence Fact-checking Technology and the Sociotechnical Definition of ‘Factuality’
Jeonghyun Lee** ; Soyoung Park***
**Research Professor, Humanities Research Institute at Chung-Ang University maryjlee1205@gmail.com
***Assistant Professor, Chosun University sy.park@chosun.ac.kr

초록

광범위하게 생산되고 빠르게 유통되는 인터넷 상의 오정보, 허위조작정보, 유해정보에 대한 대응책으로서 인공지능 기술을 통해 팩트체크를 자동화하려는 움직임이 지속되고 있다. 하지만 이는 팩트체크 과정 안에서 인공지능이 실행, 배치되는 조건이나 방식을 구체적으로 고찰한 후에 그 안에서 사실성이 협상되고 구성되는 방식을 이해하는 과정이 선행되지 않은 상태에서 기술 중심적인 해결책으로서 인공지능 기술이 제안되는 양상을 보인다. 이에 문제의식을 갖고 이 논문은 팩트체크 ‘기술’로서 인공지능이 ‘사실’을 구성하는 방식을 국내외 인공지능 팩트체크 기술사례를 통해 검토함으로써 인공지능 팩트체크가 구성하는 ‘사실성’이 사실을 더함으로써 사회적 실재를 구성하던 팩트체크 저널리즘과 어떻게 다른지 검토한다. 이를 위해 2023년 10월 기준 국제 팩트체킹 네트워크(International Fact-Checking Network, IFCN)에 의해 인증 받은 세계 팩트체크 인증기관들이 발표한 인공지능 팩트체크 기술과 세계적인 싱크탱크인 미국의 랜드 연구소(Rand Institute)에서 허위조작정보에 대한 대항(fighting disinformation)할 목적으로 구축한 온라인 데이터베이스에서 발표한 인공지능 팩트체크 기술 사례들을 검토하고, 각 기술 사례들의 목적과 ‘팩트 체크’ 근거에 따라 1) 주장의 탐지, 2) 증거 추출과 주장의 진실성 검증, 3) 정보 확산 형태의 탐지와 통제로 유형화했다. 이어서 각 유형이 저널리즘이 구축해 온 ‘사실성’을 어떻게 기술사회적으로 구성하는지 비판적으로 검토했다. 요약하면, 인공지능 팩트체크는 외부세계에 존재하는 ‘객관적 사실’이나 그 요건을 사전적, 기술적으로 규정하고 해당 요건에 맞지 않거나 맞는 것을 걸러내고 대조하는 과정을 자동화하여 궁극적으로는 기술이 구성할 수 있는 ‘사실의 요건’ 안에서 사실 자체를 재구성한다. 이 연구는 인공지능 기술의 도입 여부나 가능성 자체에 집중하고 있는 지금 상황에서 벗어나 팩트체크의 맥락 안에서 인공지능이 실행, 배치되는 조건과 방식을 구체적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있음을 강조하고. 팩트체크의 복잡한 과정 중에 인공지능에 의해 자동화되는 것이 무엇인가에 따라 ‘가짜뉴스’가 지칭하는 것은 매우 느슨하게 정의되며 저널리즘에서 강조해 온 사실성 역시 정치적으로 (재)정의될 수 있음을 기술 사례 분석을 통해 드러내고 있다.

Abstract

There has been a continuous movement to automate fact-checking through artificial intelligence (AI) technology as a countermeasure to the widespread production and rapid dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, and harmful information on the internet. However, this approach often appears to be a technology-centric solution with lacking two key perspectives. First, it proposes AI in the fact-checking process without sufficient consideration of the conditions and methods for AI implementation in the fact-checking process. Second, the current approach lacks an understanding of how factuality is negotiated and constructed within fact-checking process performed by AI. This paper addresses these issues by examining how AI, as a ‘technology’ of fact-checking, constructs ‘facts’ through domestic and international AI fact-checking technology cases. This paper explores how the ‘factuality’ constructed by AI fact-checking differs from the ‘factuality’ provided by traditional fact-checking journalism, which has historically shaped social reality by verifying and adding facts. To achieve this, the paper reviews AI fact-checking technologies presented by globally certified fact-checking organizations as of October 2023. The sources come from the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and AI fact-checking technology cases published in an online database created by the Rand Institute in the U.S., aimed at fighting disinformation. Based on the objectives of each technology and how they are set up, this paper categorizes the AI fack-checking technology cases into: 1) detection of claims, 2) evidence extraction and verification of claim truthfulness, and 3) detection and control of information dissemination patterns. This paper then critically examines how each type of technology socially constructs ‘factuality’ compared to the ways in which the traditional journalism approach has defined ‘factuality.’ In sum, AI fact-checking involves the automation of the process through which external ‘objective facts' and their requirements are defined in technically sensible ways, and the machine ‘filters’ and ‘matches’ information based on whether it meets these criteria. Ultimately, this process reconstructs the nature of facts within the ‘requirements of facts' that the technology can construct. This study emphasizes the need to move beyond the current focus on whether AI technology can be adopted or implemented, and instead calls for a detailed examination of the specific conditions and methods under which AI is deployed within the context of fact-checking. This study reveals, through the analysis of case studies, that the definition of ‘fake news’ becomes highly ambiguous, depending on which aspects of the complex fact-checking process are automated by AI, and that the concept of 'factuality,' traditionally emphasized in journalism, can also be subject to political (re)definition.

Keywords:

Fact-check, Artificial Intelligence, Factuality, Fake News, Journalism

키워드:

팩트체크, 인공지능, 사실성, 가짜뉴스, 저널리즘

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(이 논문은 2017년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임) [NRF-2017S1A6A3A01078538].

References

  • Amazeen, M. A. (2013). A critical assessment of fact-checking in 2012. New America Foundation.
  • Barnhurst, K. G. (2016). The problem of modern locations in US news. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 12(2), 151-169. [https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.12.2.151_1]
  • Beltrán, J., Míguez, R., & Larraz, I. (2021, April). ClaimHunter: An unattended tool for automated claim detection on Twitter. KnOD'21 Workshop.
  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Open Road Media. 하홍규 (역) (2013). <실재의 사회적 구성>. 서울: 문학과지성사.
  • Choi, S., & Ko, M. (2016). ICR media trend report. Seoul National University Media and Communication Resaerch Institute Newsletter, 3, 1-19.
    최순욱‧고문정 (2016). 미디어 트렌드 리포트. <서울대학교 언론정보연구소 뉴스레터>, 3호, 1-19.
  • Chong, E. (2018). The characteristics of Korea’s fact check journalism: With a focus on fact check journalists’ perception of “facts” and investigation of their fact verification processes. Journal of Communication Research, 55(4), 5-53. [ https://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2018.55.4.5 ]
    정은령 (2018). 한국 팩트체크 저널리즘의 특징: 팩트체크 언론인들의 사실 인식과 사실 검증과정 탐색을 중심으로. <언론정보연구>, 55권 4호, 5-53.
  • Chong, E. (2019). Fact check news and the recovery of credibility of South Korea’s broadcast journalism: Focusing on the broadcast reporters’ perceptions on formatting and news values of fact check news. Studies of Broadcasting Culture, 31(1), 47-101.
    정은령 (2019). 팩트체크 뉴스와 한국 방송 저널리즘의 신뢰 회복: 방송 기자들의 팩트체크 뉴스 양식과 뉴스가치에 대한 인식을 중심으로. <방송문화연구>, 31권 1호, 47-101.
  • Das, A., Liu, H., Kovatchev, V., & Lease, M. (2023). The state of human-centered NLP technology for fact-checking. Information Processing & Management, 60(2), 103219. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103219]
  • Diggelmann, T., Boyd-Graber, J., Bulian, J., Ciaramita, M., & Leippold, M. (2020). Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614.
  • EDMO. (n.d.) Repository: Fact-checking initiatives in the EU (and in the UK). Retrieved 8/16/24 from https://edmo.eu/resources/repositories/fact-checking-organisations-in-the-eu, /
  • Foucault, M. (2004). Naissance de la biopolitique: Cours au Collège deFrance, 1978-1979. 오트르망 (역) (2012). <생명관리정치의 탄생: 콜레주드프랑스 강의 1978∼79년>. 서울: 난장.
  • Graves, D. (2018). Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
  • Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M., & Vlachos, A. (2022). A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10, 178-206. [https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00454]
  • Hartley, R. (2024). Efficacy analysis of online artificial intelligence fact-checking tools. The International Review of Information Ethics, 33(1). [https://doi.org/10.29173/irie502]
  • Hwang, C. (2017). Legal measures to address fake news. Media Arbitration, 142, 26-37.
    황창근 (2017). 가짜뉴스에 대처하는 법적 방안. <언론중재>, 142호, 26-37.
  • Hwang, Y. (2017). ‘Fake news’ when form and content are deliberately misleading: Issues in defining the concept of fake news. Seoul, Korea: Korea Press Foundation.
    황용석 (2017). <형식과 내용 의도적으로 속일 때 ‘가짜 뉴스’: 가짜 뉴스 개념 정의의 문제>. 서울: 한국언론진흥재단.
  • IFCN. (2016). International fact-checking network fact-checkers’ code of principles. Retrieved 8/16/24 from https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-fact-checkers-code-of-principles, /
  • Jung, C. (2019, September). Watergate investigative journalist calls for the term ‘fake news’ to be abolished. Media Today.
    정철운 (2019, 9, 26). 워터게이트 특종기자, 가짜뉴스라는 말 폐기해야. <미디어 오늘> Retrieved 8/16/24 from http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=202653
  • Jung, J. (2019). The dilemma of quotation journalism ② The banality of practices: The ordinary nature of evil. Broadcasting Journalists, 47, 12-14.
    정준희 (2019). 따옴표 저널리즘의 딜레마2] 관행이란 이름의 범속함, 그 악의 평범성: 게으른 받아쓰기를 넘어 복화술 저널리즘으로. <방송기자>, 47권, 12-14.
  • Jung, S. (2015). Empathy, compassion, and affect: The external extension of journalism analysis and criticism. Communication Theories, 11(4), 38-76.
    정수영 (2015). 공감과 연민, 그리고 정동(affect): 저널리즘 분석과 비평의 외연 확장을 위한 시론. <커뮤니케이션 이론>, 11권 4호, 38-76.
  • Jung, S. (2021). A study to increase the influence of fact check news: Focusing on the effect of fact check news on the audience. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 35(1), 235-282.
    정성욱 (2021). 팩트체크 뉴스의 영향력 확대를 위한 연구: 팩트체크 뉴스가 수용자에게 미치는 효과를 중심으로. <한국방송학보>, 35권 1호, 235-282.
  • Kim, C. (2020). Ritual, defensive, intentional: A study on gatekeeping practices centered on fact-checking of major Korean newspaper editors. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 64(5), 5-45. [ https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.5.001 ]
    김창숙 (2020). 의례적, 방어적, 의도적: 한국 주요 신문 에디터의 사실 확인을 중심으로 한 게이트키핑 관행 연구. <한국언론학보>, 64권 5호, 5-45.
  • Kim, M. (2018). From “fake news” to “disinformation” - Comparison of terminology and conceptual definitions in Korean legislative proposals to curb fake news and in the initiatives to curb fake news abroad, Journal of Media and Defamation Law, 5(2), 43-81.
    김민정 (2018). 가짜뉴스에서 허위조작정보로: 가짜뉴스 규제 관련 국내 법안과 해외 대응책에 나타난 용어 및 개념정의 비교. <미디어와 인격권>, 5권 2호, 43-81
  • Kim, S., & Kim, W. (2019). Digital News Report 2019. Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.
    김선호‧김위근 (2019). <디지털 뉴스 리포트 2019>. 서울: 한국언론진흥재단.
  • Konstantinovskiy, L., Price, O., Babakar, M., & Zubiaga, A. (2021). Toward automated factchecking: Developing an annotation schema and benchmark for consistent automated claim detection. Digital Threats: Research and Practice, 2(2), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3412869]
  • Korean Communication Commissions. (2020, March 11). Results of the 13th committee meeting in 2020. Korean Communication Commissions press release.
    방송통신위원회 (2020, 3, 11). <2020년 제 13차 위원회 결과>. 방송통신위원회 보도자료.
  • Kotonya, N., & Toni, F. (2020). Explainable automated fact-checking: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03870. [https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.474]
  • Lee, H. (2020). The changing media ecosystem and media production studies. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 101, 81-112. [ https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2020.06.101.81 ]
    이희은 (2020). 미디어 생태계에서의 변화와 생산자 연구. < 한국언론정보학보>, 101호, 81-112.
  • Lee, N. (2018). A content analysis of fact-checking of Korean news organizations in the 19th presidential election in South Korea: Based on principles of the international fact-checking network. Journal of Communication Research, 55(4), 99-138. [ https://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2018.55.4.99 ]
    이나연 (2018). 한국 언론의 팩트체크: 19대 대통령선거에서의 후보자 검증 기사를 중심으로. <언론정보연구>, 55권 4호, 99-138.
  • Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017, May). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society. Retrieved 8/16/24 from https://datasociety.net/library/media-manipulation-and-disinfo-online, /
  • McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001]
  • Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. (2023, April 20). ‘Malicious information epidemic’: Strengthening measures to combat fake news. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism press release.
    문화체육관광부 (2023, 4, 20). <‘악성정보전염병’ 가짜뉴스 퇴치 전면 강화>. 문화체육관광부 보도자료.
  • Mueller, R. S. (2019, March). Report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (Mueller report). Retrieved 8/16/24 from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-SCREPORT-MUELLER/pdf/GPO-SCREPORT-MUELLER.pdf
  • Oh, S. (2017). Current states and limitations of automated fact checking technology. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 34(3), 137-180.
    오세욱 (2017). 자동화된 사실 확인(fact checking) 기술(technology)의 현황과 한계. <사이버커뮤니케이션학보> 34권 3호, 137-180.
  • Oh, S., & Hwang, G. (2018). An exploratory study on the formal requirements of ‘fact’: Suggestion through analysis of SNU FactCheck information metadata. Journal of Communication Research, 55(4), 54-98. [ https://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2018.55.4.54 ]
    오세욱‧황구현 (2018). ‘팩트’의 형식적 구성 요건에 대한 탐색적 연구. <언론정보연구>, 55권 4호, 54-98.
  • Oh, S., & Park, A. (2017). Public perception of ‘fake news’. Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.
    오세욱‧박아란 (2017). <일반 국민들의 ‘가짜 뉴스’에 대한 인식>. 서울: 한국언론진흥재단.
  • Park, D. (2015). A study of double validity claims in quotations: News source network analysis of news on the four major rivers project in the Dong-A Ilbo and the Hankyoreh. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 59(5), 121-151.
    박대민 (2015). 사실기사의 직접인용에 대한 이중의 타당성 문제의 검토: 동아일보와 한겨례 신문의 4대강 추진 논란 기사에 대한 뉴스 정보원 연결망 및 인용문 분석. <한국언론학보>, 59권 5호, 121-151.
  • Park, D. (2023). Journalism artificial intelligence based on trustworthy artificial intelligence: Toward a commensurability between media trust and trustworthiness of artificial intelligence system. Media & Society, 31(4), 5-47. [ https://doi.org/10.52874/medsoc.2023.11.31.4.5 ]
    박대민 (2023). 신뢰할 수 있는 인공지능 기반의 저널리즘 인공지능: 언론 신뢰와 인공지능 신뢰성 간 통약가능성을 바탕으로. <언론과 사회>, 31권 4호, 5-47.
  • Park, J. (2020). Actors and meaning network of ‘fake news’: Journalism, intormation technology, and cultural politics. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 37(4), 149-195. [ https://doi.org/10.36494/JCAS.2020.12.37.4.149 ]
    박진우 (2020). ‘가짜뉴스’라는 기호를 다루는 사람들: 저널리즘, 정보기술, 그리고 대중들의 문화정치. <사이버커뮤니케이션학보>, 37권 4호, 149-195.
  • Park, J., & Lee, W. (2008). Reporters and editors’ attitudes toward the inverted pyramid and narrative writing style. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 52(6), 123-145.
    박재영‧이완수 (2008). 역피라미드 구조와 내러티브 스타일에 대한 기자와 에디터의 인식. <한국언론학보>, 52권 6호, 123-145.
  • Park, S., & Lee, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence fact-checking technology and the dynamics of factuality: An in-depth interview analysis of field participants. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 67(4), 238-271. [ https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2023.67.4.007 ]
    박소영‧이정현 (2023). 팩트체킹 인공지능 기술과 사실성의 역학: 현장 참여자의 심층 인터뷰 분석. <한국언론학보>, 67권 4호, 238-271.
  • Peters, M. A. (2017). Education in a post-truth world. Educational Philosophyand Theory, 49(6), 563-566. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1264114]
  • Phan, H. T., Nguyen, N. T., & Hwang, D. (2023). Fake news detection: A survey of graph neural network methods. Applied Soft Computing, 139, 110235. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110235]
  • Posetti, J., & Matthews, A. (2018). A short guide to the history of ‘fake news’ and disinformation. International Center for Journalists. Retrieved 7/2/22 from https://www.icfj.org/news/short-guide-history-fake-news-and-disinformation-new-icfj-learning-module
  • Rubin, V. L. (2022). Artificially intelligent solutions: Detection, debunking, and fact-checking. In V. L. Rubin (Ed.), Misinformation and disinformation: Detecting fakes with the eye and AI (pp. 207-263). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95656-1_7]
  • Saakyan, A., Chakrabarty, T., & Muresan, S. (2021). COVID-fact: Fact extraction and verification of real-world claims on COVID-19 pandemic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03794. [https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.165]
  • Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 149-170. [https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490100200201]
  • Shin, H., & Lee, Y. (2021). Journalists’ awareness of misinformation issues: Focused on in-depth interviews. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 65(4), 239-272. [ https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.4.006 ]
    신혜선‧이영주 (2021). 오보 문제에 대한 기자 인식: 심층 인터뷰를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 65권 4호, 239-272.
  • Silverstone, R. (1999). What’s new about new media? Introduction. New Media & Society, 1(1), 10-12. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444899001001002]
  • Thorne, J., & Vlachos, A. (2018). Automated fact checking: Task formulations, methods and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07687.
  • Throne, J., Vlachos, A., Christodoulopoulos, C., & Mittal, A. (2018). Fever: A large-scale dataset for fact extraction and verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05355. [https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5501]
  • United Nations. (2013). Information integrity on digital platforms. Our common agenda policy brief 8.
  • Ünver, A. (2023). Emerging technologies and automated fact-checking: Tools, techniques and algorithms. edam.
  • Uscinski, J. E., & Butler, R. W. (2013). The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), 162-180. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2013.843872]
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wadden, D., Lin, S., Lo, K., Wang, L. L., van Zuylen, M., Cohan, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2020). Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14974. [https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.609]
  • Wang, W. Y. (2017). “Liar, liar pants on fire”: A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00648. [https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2067]
  • Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2018). Thinking about ‘information disorder’: Formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. In C. Ireton & J. Posetti (Eds.), Journalism, ‘fake news’ & disinformation (pp. 43-54). Paris, France: UNESCO.
  • Yang, J. (2019). “News” and “fake news” as perceived by ordinary citizens. Media Issue, 5(1). Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.
    양정애 (2019). 일반 시민들이 생각하는 ‘뉴스’와 ‘가짜뉴스’. <미디어이슈> 5권 1호. 서울: 한국언론진흥재단.
  • Yoon, T. (2011). Affective participations and re-construction of reality: A study on Korean reality television shows. Studies of Broadcasting Culture, 23(2), 7-36.
    윤태진 (2011). 정서적 참여와 실재(reality)의 재구성. <방송문화연구>, 23권 2호, 7-36.