The Partisan Fact-checkers

This is a follow-up to my earlier piece, Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers.

If, when reading the title, you thought it was a contradiction in terms, you'll see why I am uneasy relying on sites like Media Matters and News Busters. To me, they walk a thin line between reporting for the sake of truth and reporting for the sake of making 'the other guy' look bad.

Their focus on the mistakes means they start painting their opponent as lacking credibility when people on their own side are just as inaccurate. They seldom verify true claims, just the false ones.

I think there is some value in these sites. I've noticed their take downs can be very extensive, and I would not hesitate to link to one I found well done—as long as it is correct. I wouldn't advise subscribing to one without subscribing to an equivalent site that's politically opposite.

There is a group of agencies that work similarly. Organizations like GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) that advocate fairer representation for their members I consider separate from the partisan groups. They differ in that they report insensitive treatment rather than inaccurate information and they focus on entertainment more than news.

My view is that with reputable and high-quality sites like the ones in the original post, why bother with partisan fact-checkers? Even if the ones I recommended don't carry it, you can always, you know, do the research yourself. It's good practice and the kind citizens of a democracy need.