Snioes.com established itself as a reliable source for a time and then, when it got to be a first call utility it began to add in what liberals think you should believe rather than what is factual.
Follow the $$$.
It’s the circular citation game. Snopes says FactCheck is legit and FactCheck says Snopes is legit. Thus, both are ‘legit’ even though one is run by far left loons that refuse to make corrections to their errors even when given proof and the other is owned by the Annenburg complex (which means Soros).
It’s the same game they play with their books. Look at the references and citations in a Michael Moore screed versus those in Ann Coulter’s books. The few Moore might generally have are to biased and unsubstantiated sources that point to other equally unsubstantiated sources and so on. A giant blog-based circular reference but without any actual sources. Coulter’s works, OTOH, tend to have lots of references to actual source documents - court rulings, the Federalist papers, the writings of various Founding Fathers, or to the articles being referenced *in context* and so on.
Just comparing the bibliographies of their respective works is enlightening.
They were pretty reliable source to go find if something was a hoax before proliferating it.... I used to go there and check a lot, until they got into the lefty slanted political fact checking business too.
Originally they were dealing in most non-political matters and they were pretty good at debunking those.
Once they started dealing more and more with political issues, their biases became more and more obvious and their reliability on those has never been good.
Snopes Fact-checkers: A Prostitute, a Dominatrix, an Accused Embezzler.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3508935/posts?page=26
Some IDIOT sent me to SNOPES when I said Hillary sold 20% of our Uranium to Russia
I’m still waiting for Snopes to debunk the “hands up don’t shoot” narrative. But hell will freeze over, or longer than that, the Jets will win Super Bowl before that happens.
Snoops is very good if the subject is non political. If the subject is political they are very biased and left wing and not to be trusted.
Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls. :)
Snopes is a wannabee. He came around about the time of IMDB, Drudges actual email list and eventual home page.
They’ve been caught dissembling, lying and omissions.
What they do is define the question, and then answer it. Questions that don’t fit their agenda, they redefined then to provide the desired answer, or they just don’t ask the question. Pretty slimy when you think about it.
marketing
Same goes for Wikipedia. The media has convinced the dumb masses and they believe. Half of the US population are total morons.
Snopes usually has links to their sources. So I tend to trust them for most things non-political. When it comes to politics, even if they get their facts straight, they often come to editorial conclusions that, lets just say, would be different than mine.
Now are you talking about the original Snopes with the fat first wife who embezzled $350,000 from Snopes, or the newer, more recent Snopes with the hotter looking hooker second wife telling you what’s true and what isn’t?
I’d ike to know too.
When Snopes.co was a husband-and-wife operation, they were fairly apolitical and the site was pretty much balanced. They have since split up and the site has hired other writers. I imagine that is where the bias has crept in.
They’re not. The left still claims they can set all discussion conditions and decide what truth is. This is just one of their ploys. Don’t fall for it.