We return again this morning to our frequent and highly necessary theme of blistering the worst thing journalism has come up with in a long time - the so-called "fact-check" genre.
The problem is not with the concept of checking facts, nor is it with the notion that journalists should correct the record when a politician says something false. The problem is with how these people presume to decide what is a fact and what isn't. In many cases, they're dealing with a piece of information to which they cannot definitively attach a label of true or false, yet they presume to tell us anyway - and with absolute authority - usually based on little more than their opinion of who should be believed.