Checking facts before speaking stops lingering falsehoods

A few years ago, a lawyer character in a drama, who described herself as “Woo Young-woo, whether you read it forwards or backwards,” drew widespread attention. Portrayed as a top graduate of Seoul National University Law School with autism spectrum disorder, she corrected a furious superior’s mispronunciation. For someone like me, who immediately notices errors in documents or miscalculations, this scene was particularly satisfying.

Language philosopher Herbert Paul Grice outlined four implicit rules that guide conversation: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. First, one should provide exactly the amount of information necessary for understanding, no more and no less. Answering only part of a question or offering unnecessary details violates this principle. Second, one should not convey anything believed to be false or for which there is insufficient evidence. This includes deliberate lies as well as asserting uncertain information as fact. Third, remarks must be relevant to the ongoing conversation. Random or unrelated comments disrupt communication. Fourth, the message should be clear, logical, and concise. Ambiguity should be avoided, and information should be organized for easy comprehension.

Although these principles may seem intuitive, following them helps prevent misunderstandings and enables effective communication. Conversely, societal communication breakdowns often occur when these basic rules are ignored. Recently, violations of the quality rule, which requires truthfulness, have become especially pronounced. While artificial intelligence is criticized for providing inaccurate or fabricated information, prominent politicians and widely followed YouTubers are often treated leniently when spreading false information.

Even when misinformation is not spread intentionally but sincerely believed, it disrupts public discourse. A 2015 study in the journal "Political Communication" found that false information can leave lingering effects even after correction, a phenomenon known as a “belief echo.” For example, readers shown an article claiming a politician received donations from a criminal, and later a correction revealing the donor was an unrelated person with a similar name, accepted the correction. Yet they maintained a more negative attitude toward the politician compared with those who had never seen the false article. Cognitive recognition of the politician’s innocence does not easily erase the initial negative impression.

Recently, officials in positions of responsibility have often issued statements without fully verifying the facts, offering apologies only if controversy arises. This approach is similar to a lawyer asking questions favorable to a defendant in court, fully aware of potential judicial penalties, to influence a jury. Once information is received, its impact is extremely difficult to undo.

If politicians are not intentionally spreading false information for partisan gain, fact-checking should take place before statements are made, not afterward. Recognizing that one’s knowledge may be flawed or incomplete requires careful verification before making remarks that could have major consequences. Following the rule of truthfulness reflects metacognitive awareness of personal fallibility and intellectual humility in accepting new information.

When two female servants argued over who was right, Prime Minister Hwang Hui told both of them, “You are both correct.” While such a response may be acceptable in a moral context, verifying the facts, including who acted first, remains essential. Similarly, even if opinions differ on the prosecution’s decision to drop the appeal in the Daejang-dong case, it remains essential to determine the Ministry of Justice’s role, whether coercion occurred during the investigation, and whether the developer actually became as wealthy as a Premier League club owner. Hans Rosling’s concept of fact-based thinking, or “factfulness,” is not merely a personal civic virtue but a necessary foundation for a sustainable society.