[mod]

I think that they can privately decide okay, this is worth rating because of implications.

In the presentation, though, I think the implications should be left out. You're a fact checker, and whatever implication you pull from a claim is not necessarily the same as what others pull.

Anyway, I don't want my fact-checkers pushing an agenda, or defeating an agenda, with anything except facts. Let me use facts to side with the truth!

Don't you agree that if you present the facts in the Hillary claim, the implication & agenda is defeated? Why undermine your own trustworthiness by rating the (literal) claim false?

[duaneb]

It honestly never occurred to me to rate the literal claim. That's what google and newspapers are for.

[mod]

That's weird. It's honestly never occurred to me to go to a newspaper for any "literal" claims about politics.

That's--well, that's what Snopes is for.

[duaneb]

What do you think the role of a newspaper is if not to report the news literally?