Search for “fact check” online and you will find numerous sites ready to debunk a variety of statements by politicians. From fact checking local candidates to presidential candidates, the practice is gaining momentum. And with traditional journalism in survival mode, the information that these entities–which have surfaced at universities and media organizations across the country–uncover is finding an audience.

As a Public Relations professional, it is interesting to see the rise of fact checking as a niche news source. “News with a view” programs, journalists and publications are known to present facts and figures that fit their own opinions. With media distrust on the rise, it seems Americans are turning to fact checkers for assistance in forming their political opinions, with fact checkers seemingly able to lend credibility to a candidate’s statements or shift a campaign into crisis mode. But, while some see fact checkers as a valuable resource to cut through political noise, others point out that the black-and-white-fact check is often just a shade of grey.

Just look at the terms politifact.com uses to label statements that have been fact checked: “Half True,” “Mostly False” and “Half Flip.” Instead of lending us easy answers, it seems that careful examination often only reveals more nuances and qualifiers. factCheck.org’s report on the final debate is a lengthy analysis on complex issues, not a cut-and-dried account of each candidate’s statements.

In the landscape of the 24-hour news cycle and citizen journalism, fact checkers are not a new entity–simply a new twist in the ever-changing world of media. Advancing public discourse on the candidates and the issues is always valuable. And in the end, it’s the reader, viewer, listener who forms an opinion based on the information provided. As we all get ready to make an important decision on Nov. 6, it’s a good idea to keep the source of any report in mind and to remember that a fact check is not always black and white.