I wish that when two different fact-checkers disagreed with each other, there was a higher level calibration/arbitration process that could hear out both sides and find a consensus.
My intuition is that there are fact-checkers that focus on catching dubious claims made by people with right-wing perspectives, and fact-checkers that do the same for left-wing perspectives, but rarely do they take issue with each other's findings, so this process wouldn't need to be exercised that often.
A panel of experts chosen in proportion to the voting patterns and demographics of the relevant population would hopefully see no benefit in producing two contradictory reports, knowing that readers could easily compare the two and read expert counter-arguments that exposed any partisan bias.
I accept that this idea is unlikely to be implemented, but I'm not why as a mere suggestion it deserves to be downvoted without any criticism being offered. Are there alternative systems that could work, or dangers with the one I proposed?
My intuition is that there are fact-checkers that focus on catching dubious claims made by people with right-wing perspectives, and fact-checkers that do the same for left-wing perspectives, but rarely do they take issue with each other's findings, so this process wouldn't need to be exercised that often.
A panel of experts chosen in proportion to the voting patterns and demographics of the relevant population would hopefully see no benefit in producing two contradictory reports, knowing that readers could easily compare the two and read expert counter-arguments that exposed any partisan bias.