[TheOperator]

I just think that rating the interpretation of what Trump meant, as equally valid to the literal truth of what Trump said, is veering right into the territory of "Alternative facts". How we felt about what Trump said has become just as important as what Trump actually said. His supporters can overlook that what he says is BS and can just focus on "What he meant", and his opponents can ignore that he didn't say something and condemn him for "what he meant".

It all feels very post-truth to me and seeing a fact checker endorse this sort of view is absolutely depressing in a way. These are institutions of which there is broad support for making the arbiters of truth on social media for whom truth is subject to subjective interpretation. In which case what's the point of fact checking at all?

[Udik]

> How we felt about what Trump said has become just as important as what Trump actually said.

This free interpretation of words uses a new (repurposed) trendy term too: "dog whistle". Suddenly you are free to interpret anything one says in the most negative light, just by claiming it's a "dogwhistling" for some group or action you despise.