The fact checkers I have watched, depend a lot on the reporters leaning, whether they see the facts as (half true or mostly true) or (half false or mostly false).
It is very subjective in the shows I have seen, it would also depend on who selects the subject matter, or if the subject matter is decided by independent parties.
A fact checking show on the ABC, will be completely different from a fact checking show on a News Corp programme, even if it is fact checking the same subject.
That is why I take most of it with a grain of salt.
Why not provide examples?
A fact does not change.
A fact also lives in a context.
I don't know of any Australian news channels that are fact checkers. The closest I know of is the ABC's
Media Watch which is about media analysis rather than facts per se.
@bellenuit legitimately asks what checking was carried out prior to posting. It is undeniable that post #
967 has been disproven many times, yet finds it way here to pervert the value of vaccinations.
On that topic there have been regular references to Israel's number of vaccinated people contracting covid, suggesting that vaccines are not actually effective. But when you look at what underpins the data it conveys the exact opposite intent to that of the poster's.
On the subject of misinformation we could look at post #
973. A claim in that post suggests the American Association of Pediatrics has made an odd "statement". In fact,
the AAP made no such statement. It's a concoction from antivaxxers or other miscreants who mistook an article from
bioethecists in the AAP's publication entitled
Pediatrics, where concerns were raised about the use of "natural" in messaging on health. Furthermore, they
never suggested that "breastfeeding isn't natural".
It's an indictment of our society that people choose to deliberately or through sheer ignorance misrepresent important health concepts and put lives at risk.