Posted on 11/05/2015 11:18:53 AM PST by grundle
"Man, I hope you don’t use that logic to make descisions for election day. I can’t remember which Freeper has the tagline. ‘You could look it up you know’ but if I remembered I’d ping them. There’s a lot a wisdom in those words."
There's nothing questionable about that logic, it's pretty standard. If you make a claim it's up to you to support it, not other people to prove you wrong. Should be obvious.
The claim here is that Snopes is partisan and often wrong. So simple. Produce some examples. If the claim is wrong, there's nothing for me to find to prove it wrong because the examples wouldn't exist.
If you have a problem with that logic the problem is yours.
Other instances of clear bias:
http://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-kkk/
It is ‘lore’ that backs up the idea that Margaret Sanger was a racist.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
They managed to drag Islamic states into the mix so that Barrack Obama’s statement about the 57 states could be marked “Mixture”
There site just stopped working. I'm starting a new Rumor: FR just crashed Snopes.
Darn, now it's working again.
Despite clear evidence to the contrary in their own article Snopes insists Obummer didn't reference “My Muslim faith”! Who are you going to believe me, or your lying ears?
Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers is listed as partially true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp
Further examples can easily be found, in which Snopes like an extension of the main stream media covers helps cover the tracks of democrats. Even when they are caught in the most obvious ways, Snopes confuses the issue or calls the claim partly true. This was liberals can go to Snopes and at least say “well that's a maybe.”
The planned parenthood videos are listed as undetermined:
http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/
I guess they don't get much time to read real news at Snopes.
Oh wait, here it is in their news section from July:
http://www.snopes.com/fetal-tissue-sales/
But they never updated their fact check; so liberals can claim that Snopes isn't sure of the truth.
Claim: Snopes is a liberal rag
Status: True
Origins: Observant Freepers have long observed the bias at snopes. Like other mainstream media sources Snopes bends twist and obscures the truth in the pursuit of their liberal agenda. Snopes may be more fair than if run by Dan Rather, but like wikipedia should never be the primary source.
Source: Snopes.
Snopes says the she gave the talk to the KKK, but that the photo was forged. They show the original photo to prove it. I don't see where any of that is wrong.
"They managed to drag Islamic states into the mix so that Barrack Obama’s statement about the 57 states could be marked “Mixtureâ€"
Right, I've never heard anyone make the 57 Islamic states claim. But they acknowledge that he said "57 states", so again, they aren't wrong.
"Despite clear evidence to the contrary in their own article Snopes insists Obummer didn't reference “My Muslim faithâ€! Who are you going to believe me, or your lying ears?"
Since there was no link I searched Snopes for this and found the article about Obama saying "my muslim faith". Snopes doesn't claim he didn't say that.
"Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers is listed as partially true."
Partially true. Not false. Reading the article there's nothing in it I have knowledge to dispute, and you didn't dispute anything either.
The Planned Parenthood stuff, there's a lot of specific material there. Is there something specific that's wrong? That's the issue. You'd expect any neutral fact checking site not to join in one side or the other and just talk about facts. That's what I see them doing there. Are their facts wrong?
As for their tendency to fact check only one side of gun questions, you may be right. I don't know. There's no evidence at hand to judge. And they very well might have a liberal tendency to fact check one side of issues more than the other. But notice that type of bias doesn't mean the things they choose to write are in error, it just means they are neglecting to write about other topics.
The claim we hear in this thread and others is that Snopes is unreliable because the content of what they write is incorrect, due to a liberal bias. So far I'm not seeing what is incorrect, even if they have a liberal bias in content selection.
A plain reading of the facts are this: Margaret Sanger was a racist (it's not ‘lore’ as if someone made a mythical claim that she was racist).
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslimfaith.asp
Here's the link I forgot from my earlier post.
Fact: Obama made reference to ‘my Muslim faith’. He either said it or he didn't. You can't say false and then explain it away. He said it. Stating the facts in the details and giving an incorrect answer in the headline is a factual error. People should but don't read all the gritty details, especially low information types; heck plenty of freepers can't be bothered to click on links.
At this point stating you aren't sure if planned parenthood is selling babies is ludicrous. Denying that fact is a lie. I don't know if they are still listed online, but the unedited video is clear. The answer is not ‘undetermined’ Yes the video released by The Center for Medical Progress capture and does show Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting that Planned Parenthood sells organs from aborted fetuses. Snopes can stick their head in the sand, but she either said it or she didn't there is no maybe about it. I would expect them to admit the truth if they were honest.
I used the wikipedia comparison for a reason. They may be a half decent source to find more sources, and with snopes plan on digging well past the conclusion and spin to get to their source then you might be able to find the truth. Their bias is no different than CNN.
Did Obama say, "My Muslim faith"? Of course he did. Did he "admit to being a Muslim"? That's something they can dispute. It's more subjective. But for Snopes to deny it outright is dishonest.
We live in a bottom-line culture though. Liberals cut to the conclusion and use "Snopes says ..." or "Snopes proved ..." as the final word, and count on people not reading the articles very closely, noting the biases, and coming to their own conclusions.
Snopes is married couple that are far Leftist, and people still sheepishly believe their bull...
Google trying to suppress conservative and alternative news is now using these two PRO Establishment/Globalist, aka Snopes, as if what the say is the word of God.
Up until 2015, Google use to base their top searches on the top links people clicked on. Since the Establishment/Globalist were losing on the Internet, they re-did their algorithms to go by what the radical Leftist at Snopes thinks along with everything else CONTROLED by the Establishment instead of letting people decide what they want to believe.
That is why I use startpage. Not perfect but better
Nailed it. It all depends on what the definition of is is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.