To what lengths will PolitiFact go to suppress the truth?

I've posted a number of times about PolitiFact's FaceBook "Matrix," where participants in the discussion thread can live in a reality separate from that of the others by virtue of what groups can view their comments.

Days ago, before I got around to checking out the fine details of PolitiFact's supposed source for a story about conservative pundit and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, I left a message challenging the PolitiFact version:

Pam Phillips wrote:

***It's very diligent of Politifact to actually look up some polls. No way did Laura Ingraham bother; she just said what she wants to believe. I call that Pants On Fire.***

Most likely Ingraham did not say what PolitiFact claims. That is, that RomneyCare is unpopular in Massachusetts. It really doesn't matter how popular RomneyCare is in Massachusetts. What matters to Romney's bid for Republican nomination is its popularity with conservatives. PolitiFact provided no material from the "O'Reilly Factor" transcript to substantiate its claim that Ingraham was talking about the system's popularity in Massachusetts. And none of you who made comments noticed to the point of saying something about it? You trust PolitiFact that much? To simply believe minus the evidence?

It's extremely likely that Ingraham was talking about RomneyCare's popularity among Republicans. The truth will come out eventually.

To me and my small circle of FaceBook friends, it looked like this:

 To the rest of you it would look much more like this:

Color me deeply amused.

But the truth is now out there.  It's just a matter of people finding it.  And realizing that they're not going to get it consistently from PolitiFact.