How to Mislead with Facts
This gives me an odd feeling.They seem to spend a lot of time undermining confidence in fact checkers, to then concede, nearer the end that you have to check facts as part of their new better approach.The fact checkers I would reference, already do these things, so I don't really see what is being added here except some emotive language that seems to be saying "well, you can prove anything with facts" which feels like it's going in the wrong direction.Reading all the other comments, there's a strong vibe of "see, I told you I was right to ignore factcheckers".