8 ms·

Sites like Snopes or FactCheck.org are not immune to their own political biases: https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/ https

Sites like Snopes or FactCheck.org are not immune to their own political biases: https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/ https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dea...

squozzer 10y ago
It seems we need watchers to watch the watchers.
- notahacker 10y ago
  And watchers to watch the watchers of the watchers, since the linked "EthicsAlarms" article uses the term "social justice warriors" without irony and asserts that Hillary's client pleading not guilty is the same as Hillary "asserting the complainant made up the rape story" and how very dare Snopes suggest otherwise... It's turtles all the way down.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
I've always been skeptical of any organization that feels the need to include "fact" or "truth" in its title. Cf. Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars".
saturdaysaint 10y ago
I regard Snopes as sort of low rent but Ethics Alarms is a right-wing smear blog that seems to make comical attempts at portraying itself as a paragon of objectivity and educators in classical philosophy. At some point you have to choose your own curators.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  They may or may not be a "right-wing smear blog", but I don't see how that is relevant to this case in particular. Are their assertions about Snopes mischaracterizing the facts in this case correct or not?
  - mcphage 10y ago
    The issue is where the statements are no longer mere facts. Like "successfully defended". Snopes claims that is false, because the client wasn't freed, Ethics Watch claims it is true because the client got a plea bargain. Which is it? Well, it could be interpreted either way. Take Clinton's laughter—the claim is "Clinton laughed about the case". Does that mean that "she laughed about the results", or "she laughed when discussing the case"? Which ever they discuss, people will criticize them using the other metric. Of course, both of these have the same problem: there's a claim, which can be interpreted 2 ways. Snopes defends the one they felt is meant, and this site criticizes them for the other. On its own, whatever. But these are interesting that, while Ethics Alert's interpretations may be valid, they're a lot less emotionally weaker. Take the laughter: - If Clinton had laughed about getting a rapist off, that would be bad. - She did laugh when discussing the case, and so that can be seen as "laughing about the case". - But "laughing about the case" isn't really bad. Nobody cares if she's discussing the case, and laughs about something. It's meaningless. But they do care about laughing about getting a rapist off. You see? These both have a similar bait-and-switch: - Claim: Something that people care about. - Snopes: That something didn't happen. - Ethics Alert: Something can also be interpreted this other way, which did happen. But the other way nowhere near as significant. So can you interpret "successfully defended" as "got a plea bargain". But if you try and substitute them both back into the original claim, one of them is really bad, and one of them isn't nearly so: - "Clinton freed a child rapist". - "Clinton got a child rapist a plea bargain". Suddenly it's like, so what? Lots of cases get plea bargains, for lots of reasons. Maybe the facts of the case are open to dispute, maybe the prosecutors don't have a strong case, maybe there was some procedural mistake. That's not a very strong criticism. Also, they accuse Snopes of responding to statements that aren't directly in the claim. Is that good, or bad? Well, if they do, then they're susceptible to attacks like this. If they don't, then they get to hear an endless litany of "no no when they say X it means Y and why didn't you address that point what are you trying to hide"? It's a no-win. As for the flags one, I don't know. And honestly, I don't particularly care. There was no shortage of patriotism on display at the DNC, that playing games about which days had flags and which days didn't and which days had the attendees make giant flags in their seats is childish. If they have the pictures mis-dated, then definitely they should be fixed—but this looks like a similar problem to the above, where critics use "They didn't show enough flags!" as a substitute for "The DNC was unpatriotic!", and while you might think they didn't use enough flags, there was no shortage of patriotic attitudes on display.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  Do you have any rebuttal to their specific criticism of Snopes? Seems like they make some interesting points that they're supporting using facts and Snope's own quotes. All you've done above is attacked the messenger and overlooked the message.
  - saturdaysaint 10y ago
    I have plenty of rebuttals, but scan Ethics Watch for 30 seconds and tell me it's even worth my time spelling them out.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Yes, their criticism of Snopes is misleading and dishonest. There are several lengthy replies further down, but basically: Ethics Alert quotes two small sections of a pages-long Snopes pieces, then acts like Snopes wrote nothing else. They claim that Snopes didn't answer the original question while hiding the actual image being analyzed (which Snopes addressed pretty directly). They draw specious conclusions (like equating a temporary 'not guilty' plea with calling the plaintiff a liar). They reveal facts already included by Snopes with the implication that they're unveiling a dirty secret, and without acknowledging that Snopes addressed those topics (in particular, the "Hillary laughed" bit). They use quotes and facts, but their citations of Snopes are so selective, and use such fragile language breakdowns, that the content they're "responding" to has basically nothing in common with what was actually posted.
    - mod 10y ago
      I did not read the entire piece, but I think that you can read the snopes article without the related piece and see that they do not rate the claim (about Hillary defending a rapist) properly. The claim, as stated, is true. Snopes then goes on to defend the implications of the statement--implications that Snopes interprets. I'm not sure an organization that deals in facts should be interpreting the tone/meaning/intended result of claims that it checks. I would have liked Snopes to rate the claim true, and then provide details about the case. Readers can then decide for themselves how to think about those details. Someone out there needs to deal strictly in facts and not the implications, greater meanings, or feelings related to those facts. "Claim is true. X happened, Y happened, Z happened. Here are sources. Here's what people involved said."
- skykooler 10y ago
  Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/250 http://xkcd.com/250

squozzer 10y ago

It seems we need watchers to watch the watchers.

notahacker 10y ago
And watchers to watch the watchers of the watchers, since the linked "EthicsAlarms" article uses the term "social justice warriors" without irony and asserts that Hillary's client pleading not guilty is the same as Hillary "asserting the complainant made up the rape story" and how very dare Snopes suggest otherwise... It's turtles all the way down.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

I've always been skeptical of any organization that feels the need to include "fact" or "truth" in its title. Cf. Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars".

saturdaysaint 10y ago

I regard Snopes as sort of low rent but Ethics Alarms is a right-wing smear blog that seems to make comical attempts at portraying itself as a paragon of objectivity and educators in classical philosophy. At some point you have to choose your own curators.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
They may or may not be a "right-wing smear blog", but I don't see how that is relevant to this case in particular. Are their assertions about Snopes mischaracterizing the facts in this case correct or not?
- mcphage 10y ago
  The issue is where the statements are no longer mere facts. Like "successfully defended". Snopes claims that is false, because the client wasn't freed, Ethics Watch claims it is true because the client got a plea bargain. Which is it? Well, it could be interpreted either way. Take Clinton's laughter—the claim is "Clinton laughed about the case". Does that mean that "she laughed about the results", or "she laughed when discussing the case"? Which ever they discuss, people will criticize them using the other metric. Of course, both of these have the same problem: there's a claim, which can be interpreted 2 ways. Snopes defends the one they felt is meant, and this site criticizes them for the other. On its own, whatever. But these are interesting that, while Ethics Alert's interpretations may be valid, they're a lot less emotionally weaker. Take the laughter: - If Clinton had laughed about getting a rapist off, that would be bad. - She did laugh when discussing the case, and so that can be seen as "laughing about the case". - But "laughing about the case" isn't really bad. Nobody cares if she's discussing the case, and laughs about something. It's meaningless. But they do care about laughing about getting a rapist off. You see? These both have a similar bait-and-switch: - Claim: Something that people care about. - Snopes: That something didn't happen. - Ethics Alert: Something can also be interpreted this other way, which did happen. But the other way nowhere near as significant. So can you interpret "successfully defended" as "got a plea bargain". But if you try and substitute them both back into the original claim, one of them is really bad, and one of them isn't nearly so: - "Clinton freed a child rapist". - "Clinton got a child rapist a plea bargain". Suddenly it's like, so what? Lots of cases get plea bargains, for lots of reasons. Maybe the facts of the case are open to dispute, maybe the prosecutors don't have a strong case, maybe there was some procedural mistake. That's not a very strong criticism. Also, they accuse Snopes of responding to statements that aren't directly in the claim. Is that good, or bad? Well, if they do, then they're susceptible to attacks like this. If they don't, then they get to hear an endless litany of "no no when they say X it means Y and why didn't you address that point what are you trying to hide"? It's a no-win. As for the flags one, I don't know. And honestly, I don't particularly care. There was no shortage of patriotism on display at the DNC, that playing games about which days had flags and which days didn't and which days had the attendees make giant flags in their seats is childish. If they have the pictures mis-dated, then definitely they should be fixed—but this looks like a similar problem to the above, where critics use "They didn't show enough flags!" as a substitute for "The DNC was unpatriotic!", and while you might think they didn't use enough flags, there was no shortage of patriotic attitudes on display.
Someone1234 10y ago
Do you have any rebuttal to their specific criticism of Snopes? Seems like they make some interesting points that they're supporting using facts and Snope's own quotes. All you've done above is attacked the messenger and overlooked the message.
- saturdaysaint 10y ago
  I have plenty of rebuttals, but scan Ethics Watch for 30 seconds and tell me it's even worth my time spelling them out.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Yes, their criticism of Snopes is misleading and dishonest. There are several lengthy replies further down, but basically: Ethics Alert quotes two small sections of a pages-long Snopes pieces, then acts like Snopes wrote nothing else. They claim that Snopes didn't answer the original question while hiding the actual image being analyzed (which Snopes addressed pretty directly). They draw specious conclusions (like equating a temporary 'not guilty' plea with calling the plaintiff a liar). They reveal facts already included by Snopes with the implication that they're unveiling a dirty secret, and without acknowledging that Snopes addressed those topics (in particular, the "Hillary laughed" bit). They use quotes and facts, but their citations of Snopes are so selective, and use such fragile language breakdowns, that the content they're "responding" to has basically nothing in common with what was actually posted.
  - mod 10y ago
    I did not read the entire piece, but I think that you can read the snopes article without the related piece and see that they do not rate the claim (about Hillary defending a rapist) properly. The claim, as stated, is true. Snopes then goes on to defend the implications of the statement--implications that Snopes interprets. I'm not sure an organization that deals in facts should be interpreting the tone/meaning/intended result of claims that it checks. I would have liked Snopes to rate the claim true, and then provide details about the case. Readers can then decide for themselves how to think about those details. Someone out there needs to deal strictly in facts and not the implications, greater meanings, or feelings related to those facts. "Claim is true. X happened, Y happened, Z happened. Here are sources. Here's what people involved said."
skykooler 10y ago
Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/250 http://xkcd.com/250