The claim that factcheckers and factchecking organizations lack credibility due to, among other things, conflicts of interest and the practice of employing underqualified factcheckers to check facts is FALSE. Factcheckers checked. It’s the debunkers who are biased and untrustworthy, not the factcheckers.
Factcheckers check facts. That’s what they do, and that’s all they do. Therefore, factcheckers do not lack credibility or, for that matter, engage in any activity that is not checking facts. They do not lack, sift or wilt. And the last two things they do is bunk and debunk.
They check. Facts.
Factcheckers do not lie because, as herein proven, they merely check facts. What do debunkers do? Does anyone know?
Where have all the debunkers gone, anyway? Remember when they were debunking this and debunking that, and now… everything is bunk.
So, the factcheckers had to step in. Not a moment too soon! It seems as though (note: this has not been factchecked) factchecking came about as debunking disappeared. Factcheckers are currently factchecking that claim. If everything checks out, the claim becomes factcheckable fact.
Furthermore, if it’s a fact, factcheckers check it. If it wasn’t or won’t be checked by them, it’s not a fact. That’s a fact (because the factcheckers checked it). Check it yourself. If you ask a factchecker if something’s a fact that factcheckers have not or will not check, that factchecker will ask you where you get your facts.
Check for yourself. Any fact you find will reinforce your trust in factcheckers because, without factcheckers, there would be no facts. Facts have to be checked. And who’s going to do that, if not factcheckers? Debunkers?
In conclusion, debunkers are untrustworthy due to their bias and the fact they went underground and left all that bunk to be factchecked. Now, if you want facts, you have to check with the factcheckers.