[croon]

I couldn't read the WSJ article through that link or through a google search.

I read through the NR article, and while the attempts to contact the authors of the fact check was lacking, I don't see the problem in the fact check itself.

ACA was basically saying you can't discriminate against any state licensed and certified health practitioner.

While I think homeopathy is bullshit, I don't see how else to do it, and claiming it gives "elevated legitimacy to alternative medicine" is misleading at best.

It's really far fetched as an attempt to show politifacts questionability.

I'm more inclined by the lack of evidence to the contrary to consider them generally trustworthy.

[stvswn]

As a matter of fact, the ACA does legitimize alternative medicine by mandating that state licensure be the standard of legitimacy. Whether that's troubling or not is matter of opinion. As an opinion writer, Kevin Williamson shared his opinion. Politifact then disagreed with him, not on the merits of his premises, but on the argument itself. This would be perfectly acceptable as a rebuttal in the form of an editorial, but instead it was given an air of authority in a "fact check." This is a genre meant to convey to the reader that certain "facts" are beyond debate among serious people. It makes the journalist, or the "fact checker," the arbiter of what conversation can be considered "legitimate." It's so popular because it gives center-left readers the warm feeling of "knowing" that they need not confront and deal with an opposing argument. It can be dismissed as a lie. Ots done under the auspices of cold, disinterested public service, but it's comical to believe that the "fact checkers" are somehow immune from bias in a way other journalists are not. I'm sure a quick Google search for more examples would be fruitful if anyone were interested, but I assume that like all things people have already made up their minds on this.

[croon]

But the basis for the "fact check" is right there on the site, they aren't hiding anything. State licensure is a reasonable standard. It's otherwise difficult to specify exactly what should and shouldn't be covered. It would also be more federal control. An editorial can claim that it legitimizes something, but clarifying what the ACA actually does (regardless of what you and I think of the effects) and concluding that it is misleading isn't editorializing.