A lot of people flag according to their own political position, not the quality or validity of the content.

The first example makes me question the rest of their examples. I find it noticeable that they are reluctant to link to the fact checking they are referencing.

The first mentions Politico contending that "one in third" is only 'partly true'. Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line,[0] is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report, without any mention of how true it is (besides, Politico doesn't really do fact checking either, nor claim to be impartial).

Edit: Looks like it happened on Twitter (see reply), so I stand corrected.

That being said, I am confident there are biases in fact checking, all humans are subjective. And even if every fact check a site did was impartial, their choice in which things they choose to fact check would surely be not, or at least be open for questioning. What makes one statement more worthy of a fact check than another?

[0] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-th... and search for "one in three"

This is happening increasingly on HN as election nears.

Democrat talking points up, anything else down