Fact checking would be more rewarding and fulfilling if writers in general were well-sourced and if editors were receptive and understanding of the FC process. I guess what it boils down to is that it would help if everyone treated fact checkers with the respect they deserve.

At its very best, the fact checking process should serve as an opportunity not just to catch simple errors but to bolster writers' arguments and to have someone think critically about sources and the broader questions of truth that journalists ostensibly obsess over.

But oftentimes, as someone who has worked as a fact checker both as a magazine employee and freelancer, I've noticed fact checking is instead treated as a measure to avoid lawsuits and simple typos. A lot of it has to with the breakneck pace of media and tightening deadlines

But I hear all the time about how fact checking is grunt work. It's really not (you are paid to read and think all day!), but the main reason it's seen as such is because of how fact checkers are treated by writers, editors, managers—their colleagues

I got my foot in the door in journalism as a fact checker and despite some of the shit I've had to deal with over the years, the work itself has in the best of times been enjoyable and deeply rewarding. In short: treat all fact checkers with the respect they deserve! End rant

oh and by "respect fact checkers" I'm not just saying writers be nice (a surprisingly low bar). I'm saying writers shouldn't waste FCers time by neglecting the process and failing to provide sourcing. It helps *everyone* when writers just type up an annotated draft as they report