The next level of nuance, of course, is separating Trump's propensity of associating everything positive he sees with himself and the completely true words of that tweet. The fact stated is a legitimate starting point for a policy discussion that is easily and cleanly distinct for the implied claim you referred to.
Isn't that the problem at hand? Layering this seemingly objective "fact" checking on top of a political statements ("the way he wants to spin it"). Then picking a side. If they don't like the side then "technically" true is not enough, now the fact checker has to agree with the politics and the intent to mark it as "true".
I am pretty sure if Clinton or Obama made that statement there would be very little discussion in marking it as "true" and claiming "yeah it is technically true, what she/he might have implied is up to interpretation, but statement on its own is a fact".
Yes. Isolated facts in and of themselves, without considering either the narrative into which they are embedded, or the world-views they invoke in recipients of those messages, are at best only a part of the much larger picture.
This is why fact-checking, at the very least alone, is not a total solution.
This is a good illustration of the problem of purported fact checking organizations using the supposed fact check actually as a headline for political/social commentary. If the product you're selling is commentary, don't claim you are a fact checking service.
No, it's neither. It's analyzing the consistency between the different levels of narrative. Meaning and understanding don't happen merely at the level of denotation. This is why we need to listen to the advice of poets.
