It might be true for the fact checking groups described here, but to state that as a general case is incorrect.
> Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation".
Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified.
Fact checking must bring forth strong references/sources or proofs to either go in or against the initial assertions.
> Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.
If a fact checker does not provide this kind of info, then yes, it does not seem very trustworthy. Although you could still evaluate them based on the sources they are using for their fact checking.
But, obviously, it does not have to be the case. Fact checkers can and will provide info about their funding, affiliations, composition, etc...
As you can see, they clearly state that they received funds from Google News to set things up. They also share details about their partners, members, etc.
> Fact checking at its core is about analysing assertions that can be objectively verified.
"Missing context" does not meet this standard of objective verification. Many fact-checking desks and organizations dish out Pinocchios in cases where the "proper context" is political/ideological.
If the proper ideological context is "we want to go to war with Iraq"
The statement "Iraq has WMDs" switches from false to true
Similarly, "we want to go to war with China" vs "we don't want to go to war with China" switches "the virus is a lab leak" to "the virus is not a lab leak"
There are definitely lineups like that, yes. It's a bit unfair to put all lab leak stuff in the China sabre-rattling camp, but there's plenty like that too.
Havana syndrome is another one. I was accused of being a unwitting stooge for Putin (on HN) for doubting "Havana syndrome", or at least saying it's also really quite plausible that there's nothing there -- no weapon, no attacks. Now the CIA itself says it does not exist. Which is an interesting position to be in because based on historical precedent you should never trust a word the CIA says, unless they're admitting "we did that"!
>"about analyzing assertions that can be objectively verified."
Knowing what I know about BS-ing corporate power points and how data can be spun multiple different ways using statistics, the objectively verified information is not enough to prove/disprove an assertion. It always comes down to subjective interpretations and meta analysis of the context behind the facts themselves.
Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.