Fact-checking became a hot topic after Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Is fact-checking a trojan horse for left-wing partisans? Is it something members of the news media should do reflexively and in-person? And who will fact-check the fact-checkers of the fact-checkers?

Emily Bell: "The existence of a 'fact-checking movement' which runs parallel to, but is not part of, the press shows how disjointed the process of informing the public has become." (Instant grammar-check! The nonrestrictive which in that sentence should be replaced with the restrictive that.)

Glenn Kessler: Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC wasn't a watershed moment in post-truth politics, it was "par for the course" for a political convention.

Michael Cooper's counterpoint: "But recent events — from the misleading statements in convention speeches to television advertisements repeating widely debunked claims — have raised new questions about whether the political culture still holds any penalty for falsehood."

• Ben Smith's counter-counterpoint: "...at its heart, this is a rare campaign being conducted in the daylight on the highest stakes in American government, the giant domestic programs most Americans wind up using and the taxes that pay for them."

Ezra Klein: "Quite simply, the Romney campaign isn’t adhering to the minimum standards required for a real policy conversation. ... you can look fair, or you can be fair, but you can’t be both."

Irin Carmon: "Cynical postmodernism," beat-maintenance are why reporters don't fact-check.