Abstract

This note examines the political context surrounding the banning of the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson, Arizona and the Acosta v. Huppenthal decision, which leaves the ban largely intact. The convergence of economic crisis and partisan politics contributed to the rise in anxiety over the demographic shifts of the state of Arizona, for which Mexican American Studies became a symbolic target for Republicans. Mexican American Studies was declared in violation of a new law passed by the Republican dominated legislature, A.R.S. § 15-112, by Arizona Superintendent John Huppenthal, despite the conclusion by an independent audit he ordered which concluded otherwise. This left leaders within the Mexican American community and civil rights organizations with the conclusion that the ban on Mexican American Studies was politically motivated. This note explores the motivations by individual political actors, such as the current Attorney General of Arizona Tom Horne, and how he rose to power on a platform centered on the ban against Mexican American Studies.

Abstract

Fact-checking is a relatively recent journalistic genre in Portugal that has been growing in recent years, alternately viewed as a journalism reform movement or criticized as inefficient and idealistic. Our study is a comparative analysis of the output of the Portuguese fact-checkers Observador and Polígrafo in the 2019–2022 elections to determine whether their coverage is politically biased. Performing a quantitative content analysis of all fact-checking articles on national politics (n = 265) published during the campaign for the parliamentary elections, our results show that fact-checking activity has increased in the last elections. These data may indicate that fact-checking agencies have increased their capacity and resources, but may also suggest a greater presence of subjectivity and deception in Portuguese political discourse. The focus of Portuguese fact-checkers is statements produced during political debates (70%), while social media verification is disregarded. Our most significant finding is the lack of evidence of partisan or political bias in the selection of the assessed statements. Both fact-checkers do not show a tendency to check statements that are more or less anti- or pro-government and/or statements that are ideologically favorable to the left wing or the right wing. Therefore, our findings confirm the high level of professionalism and impartiality of Portuguese fact-checkers evidenced in other studies, and demonstrate that the Portuguese citizen’s skepticism toward the practice has no foundation.