Moderation of news websites

needs to be moderated.
I had something "rejected" by a "moderator" yesterday. It was a completely harmless comment, nothing more than a clarification. I wrote it simply because it was clear the some people were unaware of a verifiable fact and that was causing them to be confused.
The rejection puzzled me until I realised that a moderator had almost certainly failed to actually read it. Yes, they looked at it - hence the rejection. They did not read it.
The site was busy with other stories as well so perhaps the moderators were working overtime. I don't know. 
What I do know is that, by rejecting the comment, the moderators have allowed people to go on believing something which is not true. My comment did not even have the dubious merit of being a political opinion. 
I wonder how long it will take the misinformation being debated to spread out into the community and become a "fact"? It is likely to do so very rapidly in this day of "social media".
"Social media" is really not very "social" at all.  All too often it is the vehicle for bad behaviour, vile comments, racist remarks, and much more. At a distance people will do and say things they would never dare to say face-to-face. Yes, we all know that.
Moderators are supposedly there to prevent the worst of all this. I assume they do or we would have anarchy on their hands. But - a big "but" - moderators also have opinions and beliefs. They also have power. They can direct a debate simply by rejecting comments which do not support their opinions and beliefs. They can "white out" verifiable facts that do not suit their agenda.
They are supposed the guards and, as the saying goes,
   "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"