It almost seems naive for the author of this article to expect every organization labeling itself as a "fact-checker" to practice thorough journalistic standard

It almost seems naive for the author of this article to expect every organization labeling itself as a "fact-checker" to practice thorough journalistic standards, or for them to be unbiased. It seems inevitable that just like opinion/propaganda networks claiming to be "News," the same concept exists for "fact checkers," despite many other fact checking organizations being a lot more legitimate. While I like how the concept that fact checking has tried to respond to the social media age's flood of inaccuracies and disinformation, encouraging the idea that we should try to more thoroughly verify news stories and sources to make sure they are accurate, in practice I'm not sure if they've been a major net positive. For the target audience, who is presumably someone who has fallen for some misinformation or propaganda, fact-checking often seems to come across as condescending to that person. "Actually, that thing you believed isn't real, here's some smarty-pants reasons why you were wrong." Either that, or it's like the community notes system where it's an endless war of clever comebacks. I don't really have a solution in mind, just these thoughts on the present state of things.