Fact check: Why does factually.co refer to and use known liberal and unreliable sources for fact checks?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided do not contain any direct evidence or information about factually.co's source selection practices or methodology. None of the sources examined specifically address why factually.co might refer to or use particular sources for fact-checking ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

The sources do discuss the broader fact-checking landscape, including references to established fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org, which are mentioned as resources in library guides ^{[2] [3]}. One source notes that Mark Zuckerberg accused fact-checkers of being "too politically biased" when Meta decided to end its fact-checking partnerships ^[5]. Additionally, Bill Adair, founder of PolitiFact, acknowledged an "asymmetry in lying" between political parties, stating that Republicans lie more frequently and severely than Democrats ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes several premises that lack supporting evidence from the analyses:

• No verification of the claim: None of the sources confirm that factually.co actually uses "known liberal and unreliable sources" ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}
• Broader industry challenges: The analyses reveal that fact-checking organizations face widespread criticism for alleged bias, with MAGA loyalists specifically targeting fact-checkers and claiming bias ^[5]. This suggests the criticism extends beyond just factually.co to the entire fact-checking industry
• Methodological considerations: One source discusses data-driven approaches to evaluating fact-checkers themselves, indicating there are systematic ways to assess fact-checking quality beyond political accusations ^[4]
• Source evaluation tools: Multiple sources reference Media Bias/Fact Check as a tool for assessing source credibility and bias, suggesting there are established methods for evaluating news sources ^{[1] [2]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains several problematic elements:

• Unsubstantiated premise: The question assumes factually.co uses "known liberal and unreliable sources" without providing evidence for this claim. None of the analyzed sources support this assertion ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}
• Loaded language: Terms like "known liberal and unreliable sources" represent subjective characterizations rather than objective assessments. The analyses show that accusations of bias in fact-checking are often politically motivated, as evidenced by Zuckerberg's comments about political bias and the targeting of fact-checkers by political groups ^[5]
• False equivalency: The statement implies that being "liberal" automatically makes sources "unreliable," which conflates political perspective with factual accuracy. Research mentioned in the sources suggests there may be legitimate differences in the frequency and severity of misinformation between political parties ^[6]

The question appears to be based on assumptions rather than verified facts, and may reflect broader political tensions surrounding fact-checking rather than specific evidence about factually.co's practices.