Politicians Can Bend the Truth. Here’s How We Bend It Back.

True or false is fine for pop quizzes and trivia games, but in politics, things are rarely that clear-cut.

“Murky” is how Linda Qiu, a fact-checker for nearly a decade, describes many of the claims she vets. Qiu is the point person for The New York Times during political debates, conventions, rallies and State of the Union addresses. Her job: Sifting through campaign rhetoric — and outright lies — to reveal the truth.

Here are answers to questions about how our fact-checking works.

How do we rate the statements made by candidates?

• True. The claim is factually accurate.

• This needs context. The claim is accurate on its face, but it omits important context.

• This is exaggerated. The claim overstates or understates the facts.

• This is misleading. The claim contains a kernel of truth, but it distorts the facts.

• False. The claim is factually incorrect.

• This lacks evidence. There is no proof.

“There’s a difference between ‘exaggerated’ and ‘misleading’ and ‘needs context,’ and we want to make that clear to readers,” Qiu said. As she sees it, the most “pernicious” kind of statement is a misleading one. It seems to be true, she said, “but it is used in a very distorted, deceptive way.”

Murky statements fall under “needs context.” When candidates give an incomplete account of their role in a bill or leave out some of the history of an event, we give readers the bigger picture.

How do we choose which claims to fact-check?

There are several factors to consider before we decide what to fact-check, according to Margaret Ho, the editor in our Washington bureau who oversees the process.

The frequency or popularity of the claim plays a role. And we pay close attention to news moments when people are trading claims and counterclaims. We also look for instances when unsubstantiated information is the norm.

“If something is skyrocketing across social media, we’ll check it,” Ho said.

Readers can also email us to suggest a claim to fact-check. You can submit one at factcheck@nytimes.com.

How do we find the facts that debunk a claim?

Our own reporting plays a big role. In addition to our team of reporters covering President Biden and Donald J. Trump, we have many more with deep expertise on the issues. Because we have covered the campaign thoroughly, we can quickly point readers to articles or videos for clarity. We also cite competitors (The Washington Post, Politico and others) that may have a deeper look at a specific topic.

Mostly, though, we take readers to the sources of our own reporting — the data, studies and other research that we rely on.

Is a candidate suggesting that when they were in office, they kept gas prices down? You take a look. What are the statistics at the Southwest border? Here’s what U.S. Customs and Border Protection says. We also link to nonpartisan organizations that specialize in public policy, as well as trusted research groups, including Pew Research Center and the National Bureau of Economic Research.

How does this work during a live event?

On debate night, dozens of reporters and editors follow the action, carefully listening to the candidates’ every word. Many reporters have been covering Biden and Trump for years, and others are so steeped in the issues — immigration, abortion, the economy — that they can quickly discern spin from facts. Editors also watch for questions bubbling up online, and Qiu monitors email queries.

Preparation also plays a significant role.

“In the weeks leading up to the debate, I am combing through the candidates’ campaign appearances, their rallies, their social media, their interviews with TV news, radio news, and seeing what are the most common talking points,” Qiu said. “It’s not news to anyone covering politics that candidates repeat themselves — a lot.”

Is all fact-checking equal?

We approach the events we fact-check — including debates, rallies and State of the Union addresses — with impartiality, evaluating claims from all candidates and all points on the political spectrum.

Trump and Biden are both worthy of fact-checking by virtue of their standing. But Trump’s long history of false and misleading claims has led us to produce more fact-checks on him than any other candidate. We have even reported on the technique to his dishonesty.

In a fact-check of Biden, we made clear the differences in the candidates’ approach to the truth.

“We’re pretty upfront about the two and how one compares against the other,” Ho said. “We’re careful not to draw a false equivalence.”

They’re politicians. Don’t people know they like to spin the facts?

Our fact-check answer to that question is … True. But it is our job to separate the facts from the fiction.

“The point isn’t to criticize the politician, like, Hey, gotcha — you lied,” Qiu said. “It’s to tell readers why something is the way it is. If someone is making a claim about the economy, I think it’s important for people to understand the numbers behind it. It’s about the claim and not about the person.”

Qiu tracks social media posts, stump speeches and campaign ads for misinformation, but it’s the live events like presidential debates that get a lot of attention.

“During these events, it’s so fast and you have both candidates rattling statistics and claims at each other and they’re both bolstering their own cases as to why they should be president,” she said. “It’s really important for us to signal to readers, Hey, the evidence that they are giving for their case of themselves as a candidate is factually challenged and needs to be corrected.”

“In a democracy, readers should be armed with that knowledge.”