This is just my response to a recent post made by "Pudge" on his blog here: http://pudge.net/glob/2009/09/factcheckorg-is-useless.html
The particular example Pudge highlights is certainly indicative of the degradation of quality that factcheck.org has suffered, but it is by far not the most obvious or egregious example.
I found factcheck.org very useful several years ago, but over time began noticing discrepancies with other sources. At first I defaulted to siding with factcheck.org, but as I got more concerned with political matters, I started to do my own research, often going to the source; If an issue was over a bill in Congress, I would find the actual document and read it. If an issue was over a sentence from a longer speech, I would find the whole thing and listen to it.
It is my opinion that factcheck.org has gradually changed from a good source of objective, factual confirmations on the veracity of other claims in the media to yet another source of editorializing and subjective analysis.
This is not to say that factcheck.org is now as unreliable as the "mainstream media" - they still use more authoritative references and seem to still be far better on keeping claims in context - but I find myself having to parse and discard subjective opinions made by the author that are mixed in with otherwise objective information more and more often.
A disturbing trend I've noticed recently with factcheck.org is the apparent desire to sensationalize it's analyses and articles - headlines and leading paragraphs written not with the intent to inform but rather to grab the reader's attention and ride the coattails of controversy.
Personally, if I want this sort of research and reporting I would rather read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. If I want this sort of sensationalism I would rather watch Fox News or MSNBC.
BTW, yes I realize the irony of this comment - itself a subjective editorial. However, I do not claim this to be anything other than my opinion on the matter.