Can you check the bullshit of fact checking. But first things first who's behind factually and makes you think you can objectively fact check what is usually a hidden agenda?
Executive summary
Fact-checking organizations are run by people and institutions with stated missions, funding sources, and governance — not mystical neutral gods; available sources in the provided set do not directly profile any specific fact‑checking outfit or list their funders, so claims about hidden agendas in “factually” (or “Factually”) are not directly documented here (available sources do not mention who runs Factually) (not found in current reporting). The general debate over "hidden agendas" is longstanding in political media and entertainment — many sources in the set discuss “hidden agendas” as a theme or accusation in politics, film and commentary [1] [2] [3].
1. Who runs “fact‑checking”? The record in these sources
Reporting and documents in the supplied search results do not include a profile of mainstream fact‑checking organizations or a group called “Factually.” The results focus on other topics (investment data, media titled “Hidden Agenda,” and opinion pieces) and therefore do not provide direct evidence about the ownership, governance, or funders of fact‑checkers (available sources do not mention Factually’s ownership) (not found in current reporting).
2. Why people suspect a “hidden agenda”: politics, media, and narrative
Distrust of institutions is a durable public sentiment: critics argue that political self‑interest shapes opinions, producing “hidden agendas” that influence interpretation of facts — a theme analyzed in books like The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind, which links self‑interest to how people form and defend views [1]. That intellectual framing explains why audiences readily suspect motivations behind fact checks even when no direct evidence is offered in these search results [1].
3. Evidence in the results about “hidden agendas” — mostly cultural, not forensic
Most search hits in this set associate “hidden agenda” with cultural products (films, albums, podcasts) or opinion pieces alleging conspiratorial motives. The 1990 film Hidden Agenda dramatizes political manipulation and conspiracies, and reviewers and archives repeatedly describe it as blurring fact and fiction in service of a thriller narrative [4] [5]. A skeptical outlet’s piece on “hidden agendas behind covid” offers explicit conspiratorial claims and policy fears — but it is opinionated and indicative of the kind of sources that fuel distrust rather than independent verification [3].
4. Competing viewpoints present in the sources
The archive shows two competing currents: cultural critique that foregrounds institutional manipulation (films and polemics that dramatize conspiracies, [5], p3_s4) and scholarly/analytical framing that points to cognitive self‑interest as the real “hidden agenda” shaping beliefs [1]. The Nizkor piece presents a different use of “hidden agenda” as a critical lens in historical revisionism [2]. These differences matter: some sources treat hidden agendas as external conspiracies; others treat them as psychological or rhetorical forces within political debate [1] [2].
5. What this set does not show — key gaps
This collection does not show investigative reporting on the governance, funding, or verification methods of named fact‑checking organizations; it does not provide audited funding lists or methodological reviews of fact‑checkers. It also lacks peer‑reviewed studies assessing bias or error rates among fact‑checking bodies (available sources do not mention such audits or studies) (not found in current reporting).
6. How to evaluate fact‑checks in practice (based on principles, not these sources)
While these sources do not lay out verification best practices, the debate they reflect suggests two practical approaches: demand transparency — who funds, governs and reviews the fact check — and evaluate methods — are claims sourced to primary documents, data, or verifiable records. The materials here model the broader public argument but do not supply the underlying verification artifacts needed to adjudicate specific fact checks (available sources do not include methodological audits) (not found in current reporting).
7. Final verdict for readers worried about bias
Mistrust of fact‑checking is understandable given the politics of belief documented across books and media here [1] [5], but the supplied search results do not substantiate claims that a specific fact‑checking organization named “Factually” is owned or operated by actors with a covert agenda (available sources do not mention who runs or funds “Factually”) (not found in current reporting). Readers seeking to “check the bullshit” should look for transparent disclosures and independent audits — steps the current set of documents does not provide.