They'll do real fact checks, but are very selective on what to fact check.
So a journalist from the state broadcasting service states on TV that "these soldiers will shoot at anything that moves".
She says that about what is known by everyone who has a clue to be some of the more restricive and professional soldiers that exist.
Will it be fact checked if I submit it?
No. I tried.
They'd rather publish a bunch of factual but funny and trivial fact checks than pointing out that a mainstream reporter is - at least in my opinion - lying through her teeth to make people hate a certain small nation.
The claim is that Trump got unemployment to a 50 year low. Snopes rules it "Mostly False".
The problem I have with that is that unemployment really was at a 50-year low. Snopes just wanted to deny Trump any credit for it so they throw up a lot of dust and smoke about whether the president deserves credit for it.
Compare that with this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-created-more-jobs-tr...
In this case, the claim is that Obama created more jobs than Trump during adjacent 3-year periods. Snopes rules it true, full stop. They don't throw in any caveats about whether the president should get credit.
Whether a sitting president deserves credit for economic conditions is always a debatable point. Politicians will just hold whatever position is convenient for them and partisans will line up on their respective sides. I can't help but notice that Snopes lines up pretty predictably on one side of any political issue.
You'd have to be pretty biased to call a literal quote unchanged by context a "mixture" of truth.
That's not the claim. That's an editorialized take about the claim, altered from the original and stated just-so (so it that contains a weakpoint, which you are now litigating—because that's what the weakpoint was crafted to enable); the "plight of younger people" comes from the editorial purporting to debunk it, not the source tweet.
The closest thing to a claim in the source tweet is that the original words were spoken and the person who said it is the one who was speaking.
There’s nothing factually wrong with that article at all, but the entire article is loaded full of opinion and unnecessary adjectives. If someone posted that to Wikipedia they would get rejected for “lacks encyclopedic tone”.
And why does it matter? because if I try forwarding this to anyone who actually believes or sort-of-believes in the Clinton conspiracy theories, the first message they get from reading it is “I’m a democrat and I think this is the stupidest of stupid conspiracy theories and you’d have to be stupid to entertain it” and then they dismiss the whole article before they ever make it down to the useful case-by-case analysis.
If a fact checking website wants to be taken seriously by both sides, they need to refrain from attacking the people they are arguing against.