With some trepidation, disclaimers and cautions we offer the following list as a convenience for our readers who are often sent unattributed, or falsely attributed reports exposes and the like regarding not only political figures but any number of subjects.
Our caution includes that a number of these sites, especially as regards political stories, may have a hidden political bias of their own, both as to what they choose to confirm or debunk and how they spin it. On political matters especially, those sites that portray themselves as politically neutral or objective but whose heritage is dyed in the wool should also be marked for cross checking. By no means should they be considered the final authority.
Perceptive readers will know spin from countervailing facts. And keep in mind that some “fact checker” or “debunking” sites can be right for the wrong reasons, giving you pause from passing something on, without accepting their critique. Some fact checker sites may only be useful for gathering opposition research.
With political stories of course there is always more to be said. Comparing politically oriented fact finders versions of the same basic item can provide some insight into the veracity of the item being checked, but also discrepancies in the debunker’s “truth telling.” A recommended site for political matters is newsbusters.org because it makes no bones about its purpose being debunking liberal media spin and falsity. The site hotair.com also frequently serves in that regard. We should have our radars up and active regarding claims whether they affect political friends or foes.
A lot of the stuff we get over the transom is not politically oriented. If it is not referenced, or linked, be particularly skeptical, and even if it is referenced, check the references or issue your own disclaimer and exercise discretion before sending it on or accepting it as true. And likewise in “fact checking” on some of these sites be aware that there seems to be a game of creating straw dogs to attack, that is raising issues that have little serious acceptance. Similarly they might subtly alter what they portray as a myth to indeed make it ridiculous when there may well be underlying truth in a more reflective presentation. It is the sort of game played to allow them to say “mostly” untrue. Several of these sites also have a penchant for employing politically correct or liberal analysis on otherwise non-political matters.
http://purportal.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com/
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
http://snopes.com/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker
http://newsbusters.org/
