As is getting into arguments about fake news and continuing the meme. Figuring out how to work from a common set of facts is important, but this meme distracts from other important issues.

I've seen excellent articles in National Review from time to time. I'm not a regular reader by any means, but a blanket statement like this isn't useful. It leans conservative, but it's also pretty upfront about that fact.

I think you've just demonstrated why it's dangerous to have a single official keeper of truth. You're conflating policy judgments with factual correctness, but facts don't necessarily directly lead to policies. We must first judge the facts through our personal lenses of values, and that can lead to different conclusions.

National Review certainly has a political bias, but they're generally pretty good with keeping contact with reality, factually. The fact that they arrive at different conclusions is no reason to try to blacklist them.

It's just "National Review" and it's the preeminent conservative opinion journal. If it's illegitimate, then there can be no legitimate opposition I suppose? Maybe that's your point?

As a matter of fact, the ACA does legitimize alternative medicine by mandating that state licensure be the standard of legitimacy. Whether that's troubling or not is matter of opinion. As an opinion writer, Kevin Williamson shared his opinion. Politifact then disagreed with him, not on the merits of his premises, but on the argument itself. This would be perfectly acceptable as a rebuttal in the form of an editorial, but instead it was given an air of authority in a "fact check." This is a genre meant to convey to the reader that certain "facts" are beyond debate among serious people. It makes the journalist, or the "fact checker," the arbiter of what conversation can be considered "legitimate." It's so popular because it gives center-left readers the warm feeling of "knowing" that they need not confront and deal with an opposing argument. It can be dismissed as a lie. Ots done under the auspices of cold, disinterested public service, but it's comical to believe that the "fact checkers" are somehow immune from bias in a way other journalists are not. I'm sure a quick Google search for more examples would be fruitful if anyone were interested, but I assume that like all things people have already made up their minds on this.