So who subversive-checks the fact-checker publications? I hope no-one since the idea of an outsourced fact-checker is farcical and we shouldn't fall for any fac

So who subversive-checks the fact-checker publications? I hope no-one since the idea of an outsourced fact-checker is farcical and we shouldn't fall for any factception play. Just because they label themselves as meta-news fact-checkers doesn't mean we forget news includes meta news or that fact-checking is an act of bias-prone publication. The eternal problem of news is one of defining the level of controversy accurately, if we could do that there'd be no need for more than one news publication. And yet somehow no-one that benefits from constant fact-checker approval mentions that these fact-checkers act entirely like syndicated news publications with a lower word count (which doesn't make any claims of being a single-source-of-truth more valid). They are only blunting the minds of their audience by their omissions.