[Diddle E. Squat]

This article is a year old, but I could not find it in the FR archives, and because so many, even here, often cite Snopes.com as a source when addressing rumors, I thought it relevant and worthy of putting in the FR archives.

When it comes to political related items, I wouldn't trust them at all. Perhaps well intentioned, but there does seem to be evidence suggesting that they are not necessarily operating in good faith regarding political rumors and analysis. Especially in whitewashing Hillary's past.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The most prominent of these is Snopes.com, a Website started in 1995 as a hobby by David and Barbara Mikkelson, respectively a Web programmer and housewife in the Los Angeles area.

[Aeronaut]

OK, If I buy the Snopes.com bias does anyone know any other "myth debunking" sites?

[1rudeboy]

bttt

[Texas_Jarhead]

I hadn't read this before. THanks for posting it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Well, well, well ...

[white rose]

Thanks for posting this. On the few occasions I've visited Snopes, I've been quite startled by their obvious left-wing bias, and I had actually been wondering if anyone had publicly pointed this out. Now I know.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

boomp

[Tamzee]

I've noticed snopes bias, too. One particular instance is "Hillary refusing to meet with Gold Star Mothers". They have it listed as a "hoax" when the story is actually partially correct. The women tried to make an appointment and couldn't, finally going to her office directly. The staff member was very rude to them and didn't bother even telling them that Hillary was out of town. Hillary apologized to the Gold Star Mothers, stating that her "staff" was new and not fully trained yet.

The email floating around about this is somewhat conflated, but this did happen. Snopes has it listed as a hoax.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

"Nothing that was described in the article actually happened, other than the trip to Vietnam,"

The author understates the Vietnam part of this story, but it's not his fault. I wish I would have mirrored Snopes buying the Clinton White House line on this at the time, but their original "debunking" of the whole story had even the Clinton Vietnam trip happening as bunk. They had to change it when the White House finally fessed up that Clinton was indeed going on a trip to Vietnam, after the libs bashed that article and author for a couple of weeks.

[First Amendment]

When it comes to political related items, I wouldn't trust them at all. Perhaps well intentioned...

I have investigated Snopes for a couple of things that my brain will not allow me to remember tonight (sorry) and my conclusion is that they are full of s**t. They are untrustworthy and not just for political stuff. They have an agenda. Someone who will dissemble at all is untrustworthy all the time. Plus they are arrogant, and liberalism is a mental illness.

[mrustow]

I thought it relevant and worthy of putting in the FR archives

I agree! No news provider is perfect, but Insight is about as diligent a crew as there is.

[Devil_Anse]

When I first found that site, I greatly enjoyed reading it. Since I read a lot of it right after I found the site, it didn't take long before I realized that something was not right (in fact, something was left).

Notice the attitude of the Mikkelson woman--just as reflected in this article. Notice her obvious feeling that she could never be wrong about anything. She is arrogant.

I found a bit of that in the website, too. As soon as you see that arrogance, that certainty that they could never, ever be wrong about anything, you KNOW you are reading or seeing a flaming liberal asshole.

[Constitution Day]

Great article! I've never seen this before.

Thanks.

[mabelkitty]

Good one.
I've stopped using them two years ago.

[Yardstick]

*It's-good-to-know-your-sources Bump*

[shield]

I learned sometime ago to just skip snopes. I found some of their so called Urban Legends were flat out wrong.

Everytime you click on their site they earn money...I am not one who has any interest in supporting haters of America.