> But what is the problem that fact-checkers exist to solve? Their brief is essentially the same as any other journalist, and I've generally found that the high

> But what is the problem that fact-checkers exist to solve? Their brief is essentially the same as any other journalist, and I've generally found that the high end of newspapers/magazines are more credible than the majority of fact-checking sites. First, fact-checkers don't just publish fact-checks. They also work behind the scenes at the "high end" newspapers that you mention. Second, websites like Snopes originally appeared to fact-check things like chain emails, memes, and other rumors. Mainstream news sites now do this to some extent, but there's still not a 100% overlap. Also, sometimes there just isn't a story to a fact-check. The reader just wants to see a check of all the facts in a political speech or a debate. A series of 100 bullet points is not a compelling article, but it might be a perfectly fine fact-check.