AI is a major influencing factor in fact-checking in the news industry.

The next segment of the Storyboard18 DNPA Conclave 2025 tackled the dual-edged sword that is AI and our panel discussion focused on how the power of AI can be harnessed to combat the misinformation, lack of transparency, deepfakes, authorship issues and other downsides of using AI in content generation for news and media publications. The panel included Mr. Jency Jacob, Managing Editor, BOOM Live, Mr. Pratyush Ranjan, Head of Digital Services and Fact Checking, PTI, Mr. Apurva Chandra, Former Secretary, Ministry of I&B, Government of India; Mr. Jatin Gandhi, Executive Editor, New Jagaran Media; and Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Editor, Multimedia, NDTV.

Mr. Jency opened the discussion on AI-led fact-checking, noting that while tools exist, their process remains largely manual, grounded in fundamental principles. He highlighted their use of chatbots, trained on past claims, to address recurring misinformation. However, he emphasized that fact-checking involves nuances that still require human judgment to ensure accuracy.

The discussion shifted to misinformation spread through platforms like WhatsApp and AI’s role in addressing it. Mr. Jatin Gandhi emphasized that while certain devices may facilitate misinformation, the responsibility ultimately lies with fact-checkers and users to verify content. He highlighted tools like Google Lens for reverse image searches and geolocation, along with dashboards that track recurring misinformation. He believes that while big tech currently drives these innovations, such technologies will eventually integrate into newsrooms.

The panel also touched upon the challenges for AI-enable fact-checking in India, rising from the country’s linguistic diversity, with 23 official languages and many more local dialects. Mr. Apurva Chandra shed light on this topic by sharing that up until last year, the fact-checking efforts were largely manual and they had to take down videos with millions of views that were spreading ludicrous misinformation. However, he believes that AI can be useful in cases, where the information is blatantly false, provided it is in English, as the regional language capabilities of these AI models is extremely limited. He also pointed out that these capabilities were sure to be scaled and improved over time. Talking about the human aspect in fact-checking, he reiterated the panel’s sentiments as the answer generated from different AI models will carry the biases of the information that is used to train them.

Mr. Akhil shared how the inherent biases of AI models are being tackled with the use of AI models that are trained on localized data. However, he reiterated the importance of human intervention in fact-checking - a process that has been made a tad bit simpler with the use of AI that can automate certain aspects of fact-checking like revers.

Mr. Pratyush also elaborated on the same by adding that fact-checking is almost like returning to traditional journalism, where every bit of information is verified, before publication. He also stressed on the importance of human oversight in fact-checking, without which the results could be disastrous.

Talking about the circulation of deepfake and altered videos, Mr. Jency stressed on the importance of having better training and access to AI-powered verification tools in newsrooms. He also cited that many newsrooms now prioritise SEO over credibility, thus spreading the misinformation. This, in his opinion, can be minimised by investing in technology that can fact-check, or even partnering with Deepfake Analysis Unit under the MCA can help.

On the topic of AI-driven content moderation versus free speech, Mr. Jatin shared that while free speech is a fundamental right, it cannot infringe on another’s. “Platforms cannot continue profiting from a model that enables hate speech, anonymity, and virality without accountability”, he added and expressed his disappointment in platforms that disregard local laws, as enforcing those very laws could help address these challenges.

The panel also discussed the discrepancies between traditional publishers and intermediaries when it comes to rules and regulations, and Mr. Chandra acknowledged the deep-seated problem of accountability avoidance by intermediaries as the primary cause for this phenomena.

In conclusion, the panel unanimously agreed that while AI can be a powerful assistant and can help automate some tasks, the primary onus of fact-checking is still on the journalist or the media house and only by taking full responsibility and accountability of the same, can we curb the spread of misinformation