A number of fact checks just amount to "don't say it like that, say it in a way that supports our narrative instead" when there's no factual error. E.G: https:

A number of fact checks just amount to "don't say it like that, say it in a way that supports our narrative instead" when there's no factual error. E.G: https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/EmalFyS.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/bBCOXzv.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png https://i.imgur.com/UZam8qQ.png In cases of no evidence, they'll usually rule favorably if it's a narrative they like. Such as here with "Unproven, but alludes to a deeper truth": https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png https://i.imgur.com/heDavN2.png Compared that to consistently rating Trump's claims as "Pants on fire" for lack of evidence, or "Mostly False" even when they found strong supporting evidence: https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png https://i.imgur.com/gATj4Kt.png There's many topics which, even if I agree with the writer, should be in the realm of an article or opinion piece rather than a fact check (E.G: "AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts record; BLM falsely accused of coordinating violent protests"). Fact checks should ideally stick to debunking falsifiable claims, rather than providing a counterargument for/against a large political issue.