You seem to be claiming:

> "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."

is equivalent to:

> politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations.

Which is fascinating.

I'm beginning to believe the basic left/right divide is founded on the inability to handle context.

Though it's probably just a secondary effect of defending the indefensible, which makes context, like facts, inconvenient.

The post was clearly attacking "fact-checking" as a partisan activity. Snopes and Politifact type sites are under attack by the right wing, because fake news is a right-wing problem.

There's no point parsing into exactly how "fake" each bit of news is. Nothing made up by Macedonian teenagers is any crazier than stuff Trump has repeated on camera. As soon as you bring objectivity into things then it's going to make Trump look bad.

They've elected a brazen liar, who lies about stupid stuff he doesn't even need to lie about, and instead of owning that, they're now telling us that 1984 is a warning about people not accepting lies from their government.

Even in the twisted world we now live in, that is shocking.

As other posters have pointed out, 'problematic' is code for 'acceptable by left politics'. This is generally pretty well known. Narrowing things down to 'acceptable by left and fact checked' (adding fact checking to claim legitimacy) is very different from 'fact checked'.

I would guess "We have always been at war with Eastasia" wouldn't pass a fact-check, so we still appear to be divided on our interpretation of 1984.

I agree, but add that 'down with big brother' would be considered problematic. Additionally fact checking, while a meritorious idea that should be more common, is deliberately used inconsistently as a political tool.