Are reporters being biased when they fact check a President?I confess I did a double-take when I read this question. I really hope that it’s from a troll.Fact checking, for those not familiar with the concept, is the discipline of ensuring that everything that goes into a publication is correct. EVERYTHING. Every bit of data (i.e. ensuring that the Bureau of Labor Statistics didn’t make a typo if it comes out with an odd number one Friday…) and every quotation and every fact.Don’t you, as a consumer of the news, want to be confident that you are reading stuff that is accurate? Wouldn’t you like to be informed if what a government agency tries to tell you is the truth, isn’t? Or if what a hedge fund manager tries to do is fraudulent? Or if what a corporate CEO says about its business contradicts what he said six months ago, and contradicts the company’s own audited financial statements? Would you like to know the truth about how our military is doing (as long as that doesn’t jeopardize national security) or be given misinformation (and not just misinformation in the name of national security, but lies to protect incompetent leaders?) I think most rational individuals would say “hell, yeah.”So, why would a president — any president — be immune from fact checking?Here’s a question to ask yourself. I assume that if you think that reporters might be displaying bias in fact-checking this president, consider how you would have felt had they failed to do any fact checking of our previous president. And trust me — they did. Which is why our previous president — although he covers it up very skillfully — has a tremendous dislike for the press, and punished press leaks more harshly than his OWN predecessor. If you think that ANY president should be immune from fact checking, and that he should be free to make any wild or woolly statement that he chooses without being questioned — well, at least you have the merit of being consistent.But here’s the truth of the matter. The kinds of leaders who benefit from that type of treatment — reverential and unchallenged repetition of their wildest and oddest statements — don’t tend to be elected heads of democratic nations. They tend to be dictators of scary regimes in which neither you nor I would be free to post on Quora, because we’d be too damn terrified to open our mouths or type our views or thoughts.I don’t think it’s legitimate to make threats against any political leader, or to slander them by distorting what they have said by taking their words out of context. But to put their words IN context, and to say, hey, this is what he said and it’s simply inaccurate, and here is where you will find the truth — the hard facts — is utterly reasonable. I don’t really care what “flavor” of president tries to bend or twist the truth — whoever it is that tries to distort reality, they do a disservice to themselves, their office and to the country. And journalists have a responsibility to stand up and say, wait a minute, this isn’t actually how it is. In the same way that we would point to Enron’s CEO if he’s fiddling the books and we figured it out, or any other attempt to misdirect the public. Because that’s what is happening.Fact checking isn’t bias, because it is never directed against only one individual or group of individuals — it’s about every bit of checkable content. And it’s a public duty or responsibility on the part of journalists, not a political activity, moreover.;""