SNOPES....

[Caroljo]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

 

[Barbella]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

Good find, Carol! I posted that on my FB page because I have a few 'friends' who like to tout Snopes when they disagree with whatever I said... LOL

 

[Caroljo]

Good find, Carol! I posted that on my FB page because I have a few 'friends' who like to tout Snopes when they disagree with whatever I said... LOL

That's a good idea! I have the same problem

 

[LeilaniMP]

Snopes is full of crap. They've been proven liars, time and time again.

Great post, CarolJo!

 

[middleview]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

Did you read this? The bottom line, according to the author is this...

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.

He questioned Snopes impartiality because one contributor had run for office? If that is the case then your source has just admitted that Fox News can't be trusted, given the number of republican candidates for office that they hire.

I don't take Snopes word for anything. I check their sources. Let me know if you find evidence of misinformation in a Snopes response to a story.

 

[as seen on tv]

snopes is the most widely used around the world?

even if this turned out to be true, so what?

• Facebook is the most widely used "social platform"
• Most of Obama's twitter followers are actually ghost accounts
• Dan Rather was the most watched and trusted network anchor, until he wasn't
• WalMart is the world's largest retailer
• Mcdonalds has sold 100 Billion+

 

[Dawg]

3 libs in a basement

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/20...ezzler-a-former-hookerporn-star-a-dominatrix/

 

[LeilaniMP]

3 libs in a basement

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/20...ezzler-a-former-hookerporn-star-a-dominatrix/

No surprise!

 

[Caroljo]

Did you read this? The bottom line, according to the author is this...

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.

He questioned Snopes impartiality because one contributor had run for office? If that is the case then your source has just admitted that Fox News can't be trusted, given the number of republican candidates for office that they hire.

I don't take Snopes word for anything. I check their sources. Let me know if you find evidence of misinformation in a Snopes response to a story.

Nice response....
If they found a problem with ONE contributor, I'm sure there's many more. How can you trust anything they say if they won't give straight answers? But I knew you would respond like this. This is why nothing you say means anything. I'm sure you check all their sources.....Lol! I doubt you even read the whole article.
In other words....there's reason to not trust what they report.

 

[RickWA]

Nice response....
If they found a problem with ONE contributor, I'm sure there's many more. How can you trust anything they say if they won't give straight answers? But I knew you would respond like this. This is why nothing you say means anything. I'm sure you check all their sources.....Lol! I doubt you even read the whole article.
In other words....there's reason to not trust what they report.

1) Lefties can not ever admit they are wrong. It is a completely dead spot in their brains.
2) This particular lefty is a deployed, paid DNC stooge. All SEND...no receive.

 

[connieb]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

The first time someone refereed me to snopes in response to a question about something's veracity I asked, who are Snopes? And why should we believe them? I still havne't gotten a satisfactory answer to that question from the dozens I have posed it to over the years.

I think that their "urban legend" stuff was probably pretty accurate. But, when they moved from that to being the arbiter of truth in politics.. I think they have not been able to be unbiased. Like Politifact, they often assume the worst about right wing questionable assertions and assume the best on left wing ones.

 

[Spamature]

Have you ever tried fact checking the Fact Checkers? Snopes is the most used around the world. Any time someone wants to prove you wrong, most of the time they'll give you a link to Snopes. I never could understand how people are so gullible as to believe what other people say just because they SAY they have the facts. No questions asked! My God...they're PEOPLE.

This article in Forbes tells it like it is. It's pretty long, but if you don't read it, don't bother to respond. This clearly shows everyone how crooked they are. Snopes has always been clearly biased. I'm sure some of what they say are the true facts (if it doesn't have anything to do with politics).

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1cfb0b901e02

Snopes actually backs up their claims with sources. And I am not talking about the anonymous tipsters and off the record type sources you get with RW media.

 

[Caroljo]

Snopes actually backs up their claims with sources. And I am not talking about the anonymous tipsters and off the record type sources you get with RW media.

There's all kinds of sources people use....having a source means it has to be true? Ha!

 

[middleview]

Nice response....
If they found a problem with ONE contributor, I'm sure there's many more. How can you trust anything they say if they won't give straight answers? But I knew you would respond like this. This is why nothing you say means anything. I'm sure you check all their sources.....Lol! I doubt you even read the whole article.
In other words....there's reason to not trust what they report.

There was not one single example of false information in a Snopes response. That a person ran for office as a libertarian hardly means they are unable to accurately evaluate an accusation. Instead the article was making the most out of what happens in a bitter divorce. Nothing at all that applies to the content of Snopes....It would have been more productive for you cause to have found something in Snopes to question.

Yes, I do check their sources...just as I do anything you or others put out...Did you check Breitbart before you put out a thread which was based on the bullshit that Obama awarded himself a medal?

 

[middleview]

The first time someone refereed me to snopes in response to a question about something's veracity I asked, who are Snopes? And why should we believe them? I still havne't gotten a satisfactory answer to that question from the dozens I have posed it to over the years.

I think that their "urban legend" stuff was probably pretty accurate. But, when they moved from that to being the arbiter of truth in politics.. I think they have not been able to be unbiased. Like Politifact, they often assume the worst about right wing questionable assertions and assume the best on left wing ones.

Go to Snopes.com and search on Trump. They debunk a lot of anti-Trump stuff....

They do not assume anything...doing so would make them worthless.

 

[Spamature]

There's all kinds of sources people use....having a source means it has to be true? Ha!

A real source is evidence that it is true. Lately you right wingers have started to use the term fake news to label anything you don't agree with. But you don't provide anything to show back up your claim that something is fake. The reason there is a Snopes is because right winger's propensity to propagate fake stories. Notice how there is no Snopes like fact checking sites on that are explicitly on the right. They don't exist because they would have to spend most of their time debunking their own BS.

 

[connieb]

Go to Snopes.com and search on Trump. They debunk a lot of anti-Trump stuff....

They do not assume anything...doing so would make them worthless.

And? Is that somehow supposed to be a glowing recommendation?

 

[middleview]

There's all kinds of sources people use....having a source means it has to be true? Ha!

Having a named source makes it more likely to be true than one with an anonymous source that cannot be verified.

 

[middleview]

And? Is that somehow supposed to be a glowing recommendation?

You made the accusation that they are more likely to assume the worst about accusations form the right and be more accepting of those from the left.

Clearly you have not actually gone to Snopes much. I've used them to verify stuff that was negative about Romney or Bush as well. I never use Snopes alone and always read the info and check the source.

 

[as seen on tv]

Snopes actually backs up their claims with sources. And I am not talking about the anonymous tipsters and off the record type sources you get with RW media.

my daughters school still won't let her use Wikipedia as a "source" for homework, due to the instability and inaccuracy of online experts with a partisan agenda.