How about this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/ There’s nothing factually wrong w

How about this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/ There’s nothing factually wrong with that article at all, but the entire article is loaded full of opinion and unnecessary adjectives. If someone posted that to Wikipedia they would get rejected for “lacks encyclopedic tone”. And why does it matter? because if I try forwarding this to anyone who actually believes or sort-of-believes in the Clinton conspiracy theories, the first message they get from reading it is “I’m a democrat and I think this is the stupidest of stupid conspiracy theories and you’d have to be stupid to entertain it” and then they dismiss the whole article before they ever make it down to the useful case-by-case analysis. If a fact checking website wants to be taken seriously by both sides, they need to refrain from attacking the people they are arguing against.