If a question asks about the official reason for doing something, is it also required or encouraged to challenge the truth of those claims the way a journalist would? This question asks how Georgia officials justify the "cup of water" ban. It seems a fine, limited, non-trolling Q. But answers with only the official statements are getting comments that they need to add whether those statements are true. Should they?
A reporter's job is to follow up: "we banned water because X was happening. "Do you have any evidence of X?" "yes ...", "you're aware that was investigated and found never to have happened", "well we have our own investigation" and so on. Clearly, for non-controversial topics, a better SE answer does that -- it includes fact-checking and background. But it seems a strength of SE:Politics is being able to slice controversial topics into purposely limited Q's.