What independent fact-checks exist for claims made on MattMorseTV videos?

1. Where the supplied reporting says to look first

University and library guides included in the reporting instruct investigators to begin with established fact‑checking sites and media‑literacy resources, recommending searching those sites and adding “fact check” to web searches to find pre‑existing analyses of viral claims ^{[1] [8]}. Those guides explicitly list PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes and Media Bias/Fact Check as primary starting points for verifying political and viral media claims ^{[1] [7] [9]}.

2. The major independent fact‑checking organizations referenced

The sources identify PolitiFact as a Truth‑O‑Meter fact‑checking operation focused on public claims and political figures ^[3], Snopes as the long‑running debunker of urban legends and viral content with high credibility ratings from NewsGuard ^[4], AP Fact Check as a desk dedicated to debunking misleading news and statements ^[5], and Full Fact as an independent UK‑based fact‑checker that produces evidence‑based analyses ^[6]. Academic guides and library pages also recommend FactCheck.org and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker for U.S. political claims ^{[7] [10]}.

3. Cross‑database and research tools to hunt for prior fact‑checks

For systematic searching, the reporting points to aggregated datasets and portals—Fact‑Check Insights (a global ClaimReview database) and university research guides—that collect thousands of fact‑checks and enable researchers to search for matching claims across outlets ^{[2] [10]}. These tools are recommended for tracking whether a particular video or claim has already been assessed by an independent fact‑checker ^[2].

4. What the research literature says about consistency and limits among fact‑checkers

A data‑driven study summarized in the supplied reporting shows substantial agreement among major fact‑checkers but also nontrivial variation: Snopes and PolitiFact agreed on most overlapping cases but diverged on roughly 30% of matched claims in one analysis, highlighting that absence of consensus does not mean absence of evidence—just differing judgments or framing ^[11]. Library guides also caution that fact‑checking coverage can vary by outlet, topic and geography ^{[10] [9]}.

5. What can be concluded about MattMorseTV claims based on the supplied reporting

The supplied reporting does not contain any explicit, independent fact‑checks addressing MattMorseTV videos; therefore a direct answer is that no specific fact‑checks for MattMorseTV were identified in these sources, and independent verification would require searching the named fact‑checking sites and ClaimReview databases cited above ^{[1] [2] [4]}. It is possible that such checks exist elsewhere, but the presented material does not document them; the responsible next step—endorsed by the sources—is to query PolitiFact, Snopes, AP Fact Check, FactCheck.org, Full Fact and the ClaimReview/Fact‑Check Insights collections for the channel’s claims ^{[3] [4] [5] [2] [6]}.

6. Alternative viewpoints and caveats

While mainstream fact‑checkers strive for independence, the reporting notes debates about overlap, scope and occasional differences in ratings, meaning users should compare multiple independent checks when available rather than rely on a single verdict ^{[11] [12]}. The supplied sources also emphasize media literacy practices—“reading upstream,” finding original sources, and checking multiple repositories—because not every viral video is captured by major fact‑checking outlets, and algorithmic gaps can leave some claims unchecked ^{[1] [8]}.