JournalsKart submission@journalskart.com +91 88826 40642,+91 011-4310 1010
Register Login
Volume 17 Issue 1 January-June 2026
International Journal of Communication Development |Articles

Fighting Fake News at Scale: A Qualitative Case Study of BOOM Live's Operational Efficacy Within India's Fact-Checking Ecosystem

Sushil Kumar Tiwari , Agya Ram Pandey
Research Scholar, School of Media and Communication Studies, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Chairperson, Department of Mass Communication, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar
View PDF Volume 17 Issue 1 January-June 2026 10.65301/ijcd.2026.17.1.1250 ↗
Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Agya Ram Pandey . (2026). Fighting Fake News at Scale: A Qualitative Case Study of BOOM Live's Operational Efficacy Within India's Fact-Checking Ecosystem. International Journal of Communication Development , 17(1), 01-21.
Published by
Article outline
Article info

Abstract

The rapid growth of digital platforms has accelerated the spread of online misinformation, exposing structural challenges in platform governance and content moderation. In India, these challenges are further intensified by linguistic diversity, widespread social media penetration, the viral nature of online content, and algorithm-driven information dissemination. This study examines the functioning of professional fact-checking within this complex environment through a qualitative case study of BOOM Live, a leading Indian fact-checking organisation.

Rather than focusing solely on fact-checking outcomes, the research adopts a process-oriented approach to analyse the operational practices of fact-checkers. Data were collected through two in-depth, semi-structured interviews with professionals at BOOM Live. The findings reveal that fact-checking functions primarily as a reactive form of information governance, intervening only after misinformation has gained public visibility. Operational decision-making is guided by triage mechanisms that prioritise cases based on virality, potential for harm, and the authority of the source.

The study further demonstrates that verification constitutes a form of forensic epistemic labour, combining digital investigative tools with human reasoning and contextual judgement. While artificial intelligence (AI)-driven detection systems can assist the verification process, they remain limited in addressing contextual nuances and India's multilingual information ecosystem. The findings also highlight a platform dependency paradox: fact-checking organisations rely heavily on digital platforms for distribution, visibility, and financial sustainability, even though these platforms often prioritise user engagement and monetisation over timely interventions against misinformation.

By shifting attention from fact-checking accuracy alone to the organisational processes that shape verification practices, this research contributes to a deeper institutional understanding of professional fact-checking. The study offers insights for policymakers, platform designers, and media practitioners seeking to strengthen the effectiveness of fact-checking ecosystems in combating online misinformation.

Keywords

Fact-checking misinformation platform governance qualitative case study

References

  1. Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The Pillars of Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2(1), 1–4. Science Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051
  2. Ahmed, S. K., Mohammed, R. A., Nashwan, A. J., Ibrahim, R. H., Abdalla, A. Q., Ameen, B. M. M., & Khidhir, R. M. (2025). Using Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 6(6), 100198. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198
  3. Al-Zaman, M. S. (2021). Social Media Fake News in India. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 9(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.15206/ajpor.2021.9.1.25
  4. BOOM. (2019). BOOM Fact Check Methodology | How Boom Checks News & Claims. Boomlive.in; BOOM.https://www.boomlive.in/methodology
  5. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Chaparro Domínguez, M. Á. (2017). How Journalists and Social Media Users Perceive Online Fact-Checking and Verification Services. Journalism Practice, 12(9), 1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1363657
  6. Caplan, R. (2023). Networked Platform Governance: The Construction of the Democratic Platform. International Journal of Communication, 17(0), 22. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/20035
  7. Graves, L., & Amazeen, M. A. (2019). Fact-Checking as Idea and Practice in Journalism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.808
  8. Jowsey, T., Deng, C., & Weller, J. (2021). General-purpose Thematic analysis: a Useful Qualitative Method for Anaesthesia Research. BJA Education, 21(12), 472–478. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8606608/
  9. Juneja, P., & Mitra, T. (2022). Human and Technological Infrastructures of Fact-checking. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555143
  10. Kumar, A. (2022). Fact-Checking Methodology and its Transparency: What Indian Fact-Checking Websites Have to Say? Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2098520
  11. Madan, G. (2022). Understanding misinformation in India: The case for a meaningful regulatory approach for social media platforms. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.01508
  12. Matasick, C., Alfonsi, C., & Bellantoni, A. (2020). Governance responses to disinformation. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance. https://doi.org/10.1787/d6237c85-en
  13. Mirza, H., Bellalem, F., & Mirza, C. (2023, May). Ethical considerations in qualitative research: Summary guidelines for novice social science researchers.
  14. Social Studies and Research Journal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370838199_Ethical_Considerations_in_Qualitative_
  15. Research_Summary_Guidelines_for_Novice_Social_Science_Researchers
  16. Nakov, P., Corney, D. C., Hasanain, M., Alam, F., Elsayed, T., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Papotti, P., Shaar, S., & Da, G. (2021). Automated Fact-Checking for Assisting Human Fact-Checkers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2103.07769
  17. Noor, R. (2025). A Study of Fake News and select Fact-Checking Sites in India. https://lis.uok.edu.in/Files/9ebfb2f2-5003-47a4-9dfe-d3cdcc6a2020/Journal/830af4bf-cf66-40ef-9ffc-0232459d76be.pdf
  18. Olmos-Vega, F., Stalmeijer, R., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2022). A Practical Guide to Reflexivity in Qualitative research: AMEE Guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(149), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
  19. Owen, T. (2019). The Case for Platform Governance. https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/documents/Paper%20no.231web.pdf
  20. Porter, E., & Wood, T. J. (2021). The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37), e2104235118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2104235118
  21. Roy, E., Laskar, K. A., & Reyaz, M. (2025). Retroactive Gatekeepers: Fact-Checkers, Electoral Disinformation, and Audience Engagement in India. Emerging Media, 3(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543251395190
  22. Saunders, B., Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2015). Anonymising Interview data: Challenges and Compromise in Practice. QualitativeResearch, 15(5), 616–632. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4582834/
  23. Sehat, C. M., Li, R., Nie, P., Prabhakar, T., & Zhang, A. X. (2024). Misinformation as a Harm: Structured Approaches for Fact-Checking Prioritization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641010
  24. Siapera, E. (2022). Platform Governance and the “Infodemic.” Javnost - the Public, 29(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2022.2042791
  25. Tambuscio, M., Ruffo, G., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2015). Fact-checking Effect on Viral Hoaxes. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’15 Companion. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742572
  26. Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2021). Is Research with Qualitative Data More Prevalent and Impactful now? Interviews, Case studies, Focus Groups and Ethnographies. Library & Information Science Research, 43(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101094
  27. Vinhas, O., & Bastos, M. (2023). The WEIRD governance of fact-checking and the politics of content moderation. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231213942
  28. Xu, Z., Wang, Y., & Qian, Y. (2025). The design and application of in-depth interviews in primary care research. Chinese General Practice Journal, 2(2), 100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgpj.2025.100062
Citation copied to clipboard