The final speaker in this session at the IAMCR 2025 conference in Singapore is Hanye Yang, with a comparison of fact-checking operations in China and Hong Kong. Fact-checking has grown substantially in recent years, in response to the rise of mis- and disinformation; there is not a sizeable fact-checking sector in Asia too. But do western models of fact-checking apply here, especially in the context of non-democratic political systems and limited press freedom?
The difference between China and Hong Kong is interesting here, since their media systems diverged under British rule in Hong Kong but are perhaps converging again with China’s gradual dismantling of the One Country, Two Systems framework. This may lead to struggles between ideals and practices in fact-checking too.
Hanye interviewed some 22 fact-checkers from eight organisations across the two sites; she found that both share a role perception as educators, rumour busters, information curators, and independent advocates; Hong Kong fact-checkers also see themselves as watchdogs who monitor information flows, while mainland Chinese fact-checkers regard themselves more as facilitators of national unity and stability, and gatewatchers to set the record straight.
Their working template is quite similar overall, but what diverges sharply is how they filter for claims that are considered verifiable or acceptable. Mainland Chinese fact-checkers are mostly focussed on verifying international claims, while Hong Kong fact-checkers focus on both local and international issues.
Through self-censorship, watchdog roles and ideal norms of objectivity and impartiality often fail to translated into full role enactment; individual normative roles like educator, rumour buster, and curator, and institutional roles like facilitator, gatewatcher, and independent adjudicator do translate more directly.
Mainland China, then, has a state-directed model of fact-checking that aligns with national narratives and party agendas and navigates political expectations and censorship, while the model in Hong Kong is now transitional from autonomous western practices following the International Fact-Checking Network’s principles to more mainland China-aligned processes that stay clear of the government’s red lines determining political sensitivity.
