[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How credible is Snopes.com? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/20/2016 1:29:06 PM EDT
| How credible are they? Who runs them and who funds them? Every time I talk about something that is discussed around here, the lib at work brings up Snopes and calls bullshit. Are we that wrong or are they just slanted one way? |
|
She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.) Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.) |
|
Anyone who trusts Snopes for actual fact checking is at best a fucking retard.
They are hilariously liberal and as such, have very little to do with facts. They'll say "FALSE" on something, then go into 7 paragraphs where they admit it's true, but because of (some convoluted story here), it's not (insert democratic politician's name here) fault. |
Hi OP!
|
Quoted:
Example of a fact? Usually they're pretty good. It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. |
|
Quoted:
Example of a fact? Usually they're pretty good. For example: clinton's nuke issue Big old red FALSE, then a convoluted explanation that she DID say it, word for word, but because they can't verify it with a Pentagon official, it's not really leaking classified info because nobody will confirm what she said is correct. So because nobody else wants to confirm the classified info, Hillary didn't actually leak classified info when she said it takes 4 minutes. |
|
Quoted:
It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. Quoted:
Quoted:
Example of a fact? Usually they're pretty good. It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. Conversely, if it was an allegation against their political enemy (e.g., Trump) it would be worded to more strongly implicate direct involvement and therefore "mostly true" or "true". |
|
Quoted:
It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. Quoted:
Quoted:
Example of a fact? Usually they're pretty good. It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. Link to that particular article? Especially since it's written in Politifact style... 
|
| Snopes reasearchers are sloppy sometimes overlooking valid sources and believing dubious ones. I've seen some snopes research where they will say they were unable to confirm or refute something and then I will find a source that they didn't list confirming or refuting something |
| Well, as of today I'll no longer trust them. They said Hillarys "4minute" comment was false and she didn't say anything classified. Now I've never held a clearance, but I know that even if it can be open-sourced, YOU DON'T COMMENT ON IT. Period. Especially regarding nukes. |
|
Quoted:
Look at the response to Hillary's 4 minute comment. Think about how comprehensive it is and how fast it was posted. They had it ready and waiting. Now ask yourself again, how credible are they? You're saying that Snopes coordinated with the campaign and had that ready to go on the off chance that she happened to drop that factoid? So, the Hillary campaign shared classified information with Snopes just in case this came up? |
|
Quoted:
Link to that particular article? Especially since it's written in Politifact style...
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Example of a fact? Usually they're pretty good. It would be something like: Trump alleges Hillary's state department lost 7bn. False. The state department could not account for 7bn across multiple projects that were started under the Bush administration and because there was no proper accounting for the funds and when they were lost it's misleading to implicate that Hillary had any part in the loss of funds, so we rate this statement as FALSE. Link to that particular article? Especially since it's written in Politifact style...
I made it up, simply indicative of how they (obviously) in many instances formulate the narrative to arrive at the desired outcome. To be fair though, it would take a much larger budget than they have to arrive at a factually reasonable conclusion for all the bullshit they rate as true/false, but they especially neglect digging in instances where superficial surface material can support their desired outcome. |
|
When politics are involved, everything's bullshit. It's all a matter of perception and opinion therefore impossible to comment on anything political without a bias.
For fact based things they do their due diligence to investigate and have given themselves some solid credibility. They really should stick with that and stay the fuck away from politics. |
|
Quoted:
Well, as of today I'll no longer trust them. They said Hillarys "4minute" comment was false and she didn't say anything classified. Now I've never held a clearance, but I know that even if it can be open-sourced, YOU DON'T COMMENT ON IT. Period. Especially regarding nukes. So, you distrust them based entirely on your feels about this particular matter. Not on documented policy, not on your extensive time with a clearance, but what you "know". |
|
Quoted: You're saying that Snopes coordinated with the campaign and had that ready to go on the off chance that she happened to drop that factoid? So, the Hillary campaign shared classified information with Snopes just in case this came up? Quoted: Quoted: Look at the response to Hillary's 4 minute comment. Think about how comprehensive it is and how fast it was posted. They had it ready and waiting. Now ask yourself again, how credible are they? You're saying that Snopes coordinated with the campaign and had that ready to go on the off chance that she happened to drop that factoid? So, the Hillary campaign shared classified information with Snopes just in case this came up? |
|
Quoted:
So, you distrust them based entirely on your feels about this particular matter. Not on documented policy, not on your extensive time with a clearance, but what you "know". Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, as of today I'll no longer trust them. They said Hillarys "4minute" comment was false and she didn't say anything classified. Now I've never held a clearance, but I know that even if it can be open-sourced, YOU DON'T COMMENT ON IT. Period. Especially regarding nukes. So, you distrust them based entirely on your feels about this particular matter. Not on documented policy, not on your extensive time with a clearance, but what you "know". Why are you attacking me on my comment? Until now, I simply went to snopes to debunk stupid stories that got forwarded on facebook, but this morning I googled "hillary clinton-4 minutes-debate" and read what snopes had to say. No, I have never held a clearance, but I was raised in a USAF household with a parent who held a clearance. There were many times I'd read things and knew based on what my mom did, it was stuff she couldn't confirm because it'd be tantamount to revealing classified info. Considering what she worked with and couldn't talk about, I'm damn sure someone else with a clearance briefed on nukes sure as shit isn't supposed to say anything. Nothing about "feels". |
|
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case. mostly false WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later. WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant. Mostly false? Lulz |
|
Quoted:
When politics are involved, everything's bullshit. It's all a matter of perception and opinion therefore impossible to comment on anything political without a bias. For fact based things they do their due diligence to investigate and have given themselves some solid credibility. They really should stick with that and stay the fuck away from politics. That is basically it. I reference them for any of the regular "too good to be true" stuff on FB or email, but won't consult them on anything political after noticing bias there. |
I was referencing the 4 minute nuke comment today. I told her later that they are left leaning liberals and she didn't seem to have a problem with that. It was a conspiracy theory on my part and even if they have a bias, they can still fact check and include their opinions too lol. Its her last day tomorrow. I won't have to hear all her BS anymore then 
|
|
Quoted:
You're saying that Snopes coordinated with the campaign and had that ready to go on the off chance that she happened to drop that factoid? So, the Hillary campaign shared classified information with Snopes just in case this came up? Quoted:
Quoted:
Look at the response to Hillary's 4 minute comment. Think about how comprehensive it is and how fast it was posted. They had it ready and waiting. Now ask yourself again, how credible are they? You're saying that Snopes coordinated with the campaign and had that ready to go on the off chance that she happened to drop that factoid? So, the Hillary campaign shared classified information with Snopes just in case this came up? More like they responded to it as soon as it happened. They're pretty good about subjects other than politics, but I've seen a bunch of contorted positions from them on liberal politicians. |
|
Quoted:
Never credible when it debunks nonsense I believe! Read this one and tell me how it's not biased. http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/19/scott-foval-reportedly-fired-from-political-organization-over-sting-videos/ |
|
Quoted:
Why are you attacking me on my comment? Until now, I simply went to snopes to debunk stupid stories that got forwarded on facebook, but this morning I googled "hillary clinton-4 minutes-debate" and read what snopes had to say. No, I have never held a clearance, but I was raised in a USAF household with a parent who held a clearance. There were many times I'd read things and knew based on what my mom did, it was stuff she couldn't confirm because it'd be tantamount to revealing classified info. Considering what she worked with and couldn't talk about, I'm damn sure someone else with a clearance briefed on nukes sure as shit isn't supposed to say anything. Nothing about "feels". Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, as of today I'll no longer trust them. They said Hillarys "4minute" comment was false and she didn't say anything classified. Now I've never held a clearance, but I know that even if it can be open-sourced, YOU DON'T COMMENT ON IT. Period. Especially regarding nukes. So, you distrust them based entirely on your feels about this particular matter. Not on documented policy, not on your extensive time with a clearance, but what you "know". Why are you attacking me on my comment? Until now, I simply went to snopes to debunk stupid stories that got forwarded on facebook, but this morning I googled "hillary clinton-4 minutes-debate" and read what snopes had to say. No, I have never held a clearance, but I was raised in a USAF household with a parent who held a clearance. There were many times I'd read things and knew based on what my mom did, it was stuff she couldn't confirm because it'd be tantamount to revealing classified info. Considering what she worked with and couldn't talk about, I'm damn sure someone else with a clearance briefed on nukes sure as shit isn't supposed to say anything. Nothing about "feels". I'm not attacking your you based on your comment. I'm pointing out that your comment and your reaction to the Snopes thing is entirely based on your feels and, apparently, your mom's job. If you don't think you're reacting emotionally then I imagine you can show me an actual debunking rather than "I've never had a clearance, but my mom did, so I think this is a major security breach, therefore Snopes is untrustworthy." |
|
Quoted:
The owners are liberals from California and don't have any specific training as far as I know. Snopes is right about some stuff, but I wouldn't trust them for much regarding politics. See the Swift Boat controversy involving Lurch as an example of their bias. |