This begs the question, "who fact-checks the fact-checkers?" If the institutional "fact-checkers" & institutional opinion is incorrect, as it has been many time

This begs the question, "who fact-checks the fact-checkers?" If the institutional "fact-checkers" & institutional opinion is incorrect, as it has been many times in the past, then the heavy-handed "correcting" of the critics is counter-productive to accurate & representative public discourse. IMO, a more useful approach is to bring forward all novel perspectives on a topic and let people make up their own minds. Many people don't like being told what to think & distrust the notion of "authoritative sources". However, full disclosure of knowledge & reasoned arguments demonstrates a good-faith account of a particular issue. Institutions having to resort to "correcting the record", especially when the title begins with "No, ..." & the predictable comparison to the flat-earthers, only sows more distrust in the institutions. The refutation by strawman may make the proponents of the institutional narrative feel more self-righteous & confident, but only insults & strengthens resolves to resist such narrative from opponents of the institutional narrative.