Often we don't know the facts until much later. Even then the facts may be a matter of opinion, or may have conflicting sources. The gun control debate is a goo

Often we don't know the facts until much later. Even then the facts may be a matter of opinion, or may have conflicting sources. The gun control debate is a good example where facts on both sides are used to support each side's biases. On Wikipedia we see one side using a particular set of facts and then deleting the other side's facts. The same is true in newspaper articles where certain awkward facts are conveniently left out of reporting and analysis. But what if both sides are correct? We'll never know what is the truth because there are always different ways of looking at something. In many case, fact checking is often a way to hide bias under a veneer of authority, by proclaiming a selected set of selection bias facts as "the fact-checked truth". You only need to follow the major fact checking sites for a short time to see this in action. The question is how can you effectively present conflicting information. I believe the article format is biased from the outset, whereas a more data-driven approach leads to less bias.