Fact checking was very effective for publications like Readers' Digest that routinely invited guest authors. The publication wanted a variety of authors to cont

Fact checking was very effective for publications like Readers' Digest that routinely invited guest authors. The publication wanted a variety of authors to contribute, and they also had a reputation to defend. If you've ever been interviewed by a modern journo, you know you just get the same question reworded a dozen different ways. The reason is that they decide what story they want to write up front, and then just go shopping for facts to support it. That story is usually dictated by market pressures, which presently reward sensationalism to feed the addiction of a dwindling number of listeners in an echo chambers. And current fact checkers are typically checking material put out by others, which is completely broken. They have all the same incentives as anyone writing a hit / puff piece, except they put a phony "truth number" at the top and other sites will tally those up as though it means something.