7 ms·

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 object

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.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  The Ethics Alert assertions are badly wrong. They've actually mischaracterized Snopes far worse than Snopes mischaracterized the case. Their statements aren't wrong just because they're a smear blog, but their smear blog status should prime you to expect horribly inaccurate claims. Snopes uses a four-part breakdown for their claims. Ethics Alert took two parts, misrepresented them, then blasted Snopes for inaccuracy and incompleteness (while, mind you, ignoring the bulk of the article). Snopes includes: - An example of the claim "in the wild"; in this case, a picture with text. - A simple 'Claim' section, stating the core assertions shared by most of the 'wild' examples in easy to read/search text. - An assessment, giving a conclusion and basic propositions about what was true and false. - An analysis, giving sources and reasons for the decision. Ethics Alert quotes parts two (claim) and three (assessment) then tears into them for incompleteness and mismatch. They open by saying that the assessment doesn't match the claim, and that the claim is "100% true". The assessment doesn't match the written claim, it matches the specific statements from the "wild" example. By failing to mention or reproduce that example, Ethics Alert hides the entire focus of Snopes' analysis to make them easier to attack. E.A. then says "Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case. Ridiculous." We're expected to accept that there's no meaningful difference between "about the case" and "about the outcome of the case". That's what's ridiculous - what they call equivocation, I call a crucial difference. If a man breaks into a murder trial wearing a rubber chicken on his head, I'm not going to claim that everyone telling the story is laughing about murder. Clinton laughed about how inaccurate polygraphs are, and we're being told to treat that as laughing about rape. Ethics Alert also fails to mention that Snopes includes the tape with the laughter, acting as though it's a dirty secret Snopes hid from their readers. (Incidentally, this is a sloppy, though common, use of 'equivocation'. Equivocation is "abusing multiple meanings", not "drawing petty distinctions".) E.A. also blurs the line between legal actions and factual claims, saying "Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary 'did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.'' She pleaded not guilty." That's a standard part of a legal proceeding for all kinds of reasons, and there isn't an honest lawyer alive if "entering a plea which doesn't match the result" counts as lying. Notably, Hillary didn't claim innocence, but took a plea bargain for her client. Pleading 'guilty' has legal consequences apart from whether one committed the action in question (like the loss of ability to seek a plea bargain), and pleading 'not guilty' encompasses claims like insufficient evidence to convict. The E.A. article goes on at great length, wandering closer and further from reality. But all all points, it misrepresents Snopes, misrepresents the cases in question, and views clear, reasonable language with the most hostile interpretations it can find.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Did you read the article? this is clearly a Clinton smear job using snopes as a vehicle. At best it splits hairs; at worst it makes her out to be an amoral Machiavellian who doesn't care about child rapists. I can't think of a more obvious conflict of interest here with the right wing politics at play on the blog. I'm personally ok with snopes as a whole even if their characterization is "mostly false" instead of "half false". Yes, Clinton laughed at aspects of the case, not the case itself. Yes, she defended him, but a plea deal is a far cry from success for the child rapist, it's success on her part. All the stuff they complain about in the snopes article can be inverted to complain about this article--they took the most damning possible interpretation of the events even if it's clear they're only proving the literal phrase is 100% correct without touching what it implies. Actually, on further thought, this gives me more confidence in snopes's ability to tease apart delicate political topics. I would be truly interested in hearing what aspects of the blog post people found convincing.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "this is clearly a Clinton smear job using snopes as a vehicle." Which statements in particular are incorrect? On the contrary, from what I read they go out of their way to note that criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defense, and that there was nothing unethical about Hillary providing one. "Now, as I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant..." They are objecting to the Snopes spin, not the actions of Clinton herself. Edit to include the salient point: The original assertion was that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case". Snopes rates this "mostly false", when it appears to actually be 100% true.
    - Goronmon 10y ago
      The issue of bias comes into play when it comes to the implied meaning behind the statements being reviewed. "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case" Statements like this are used when people are trying to criticize Clinton. They are used as evidence that she is a despicable human being, because what kind of person not only defends child rapists, but laughs about it? And I think Snopes is basically responding to the implied meaning. Is it the job of places like Snopes to only review the literal interpretation of statements being reviewed, or is their job to provide more insight and context into the matter as a whole?
- bicknergseng 10y ago
  It appears some of their assertions are correct, if the response disproportional. The inability to see gray area is typically a large part of the problem in a lot of political discussions, and the blogosphere is always the worst when it comes to painting something nuanced as black or white. I have no idea why I'm responding to this.
  - iainmerrick 10y ago
    Thanks for responding anyway! I started to reply myself but couldn't figure out a way to phrase it without either resorting to hectoring, or getting dragged into the kind of legalistic, "rational" tarpit that's really the underlying problem. Your point is spot on.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It is quite relevant, as everything they do is shaped through that past lens.
- chc 10y ago
  I don't know if they're a right-wing smear blog or what, but their assertions range from "wrong" to "pointlessly nit-picky," and never appear to build much of a case against Snopes. Briefly: 1. They accuse Snopes of "moving the goalposts" and "attacking straw men" by only quoting Snopes' summary of the text Snopes is responding to, and not the text in the image itself. The Snopes article includes both, so while the summary is perfunctory, it's clear where Snopes got the claims it was refuting. 2. The original claim says: "Hillary got my rapist freed. In 1980 she gave an interview where she admitted she knew he was guilty. And she laughed about it." Snopes interprets this as suggesting that Hillary laughed about the fact that she knowingly got a guilty rapist off, and their debunking is based around this interpretation. Ethics Alarms objects to Snopes' rebuttal on the grounds that Hillary laughed at some point in the interview, which seems to me to miss the point that the original image was trying to make. 3. The last point they take issue with is whether Hillary accused the girl of making it up because she enjoyed fantasizing about older men. Snopes' explanation is that this claim comes from an affidavit where Hillary merely asked for permission from the court to examine whether this might be the case, and that not to follow this avenue of inquiry after her client suggested it would have been failing to do her job. Ethics Alarms objects that by pleading "not guilty," Hillary made this accusation. Ethics Alarms then goes on to agree that Hillary acted responsibly here, so I don't even know why they're attacking Snopes on this.
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

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.
Bartweiss 10y ago
The Ethics Alert assertions are badly wrong. They've actually mischaracterized Snopes far worse than Snopes mischaracterized the case. Their statements aren't wrong just because they're a smear blog, but their smear blog status should prime you to expect horribly inaccurate claims. Snopes uses a four-part breakdown for their claims. Ethics Alert took two parts, misrepresented them, then blasted Snopes for inaccuracy and incompleteness (while, mind you, ignoring the bulk of the article). Snopes includes: - An example of the claim "in the wild"; in this case, a picture with text. - A simple 'Claim' section, stating the core assertions shared by most of the 'wild' examples in easy to read/search text. - An assessment, giving a conclusion and basic propositions about what was true and false. - An analysis, giving sources and reasons for the decision. Ethics Alert quotes parts two (claim) and three (assessment) then tears into them for incompleteness and mismatch. They open by saying that the assessment doesn't match the claim, and that the claim is "100% true". The assessment doesn't match the written claim, it matches the specific statements from the "wild" example. By failing to mention or reproduce that example, Ethics Alert hides the entire focus of Snopes' analysis to make them easier to attack. E.A. then says "Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case. Ridiculous." We're expected to accept that there's no meaningful difference between "about the case" and "about the outcome of the case". That's what's ridiculous - what they call equivocation, I call a crucial difference. If a man breaks into a murder trial wearing a rubber chicken on his head, I'm not going to claim that everyone telling the story is laughing about murder. Clinton laughed about how inaccurate polygraphs are, and we're being told to treat that as laughing about rape. Ethics Alert also fails to mention that Snopes includes the tape with the laughter, acting as though it's a dirty secret Snopes hid from their readers. (Incidentally, this is a sloppy, though common, use of 'equivocation'. Equivocation is "abusing multiple meanings", not "drawing petty distinctions".) E.A. also blurs the line between legal actions and factual claims, saying "Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary 'did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.'' She pleaded not guilty." That's a standard part of a legal proceeding for all kinds of reasons, and there isn't an honest lawyer alive if "entering a plea which doesn't match the result" counts as lying. Notably, Hillary didn't claim innocence, but took a plea bargain for her client. Pleading 'guilty' has legal consequences apart from whether one committed the action in question (like the loss of ability to seek a plea bargain), and pleading 'not guilty' encompasses claims like insufficient evidence to convict. The E.A. article goes on at great length, wandering closer and further from reality. But all all points, it misrepresents Snopes, misrepresents the cases in question, and views clear, reasonable language with the most hostile interpretations it can find.
duaneb 10y ago
Did you read the article? this is clearly a Clinton smear job using snopes as a vehicle. At best it splits hairs; at worst it makes her out to be an amoral Machiavellian who doesn't care about child rapists. I can't think of a more obvious conflict of interest here with the right wing politics at play on the blog. I'm personally ok with snopes as a whole even if their characterization is "mostly false" instead of "half false". Yes, Clinton laughed at aspects of the case, not the case itself. Yes, she defended him, but a plea deal is a far cry from success for the child rapist, it's success on her part. All the stuff they complain about in the snopes article can be inverted to complain about this article--they took the most damning possible interpretation of the events even if it's clear they're only proving the literal phrase is 100% correct without touching what it implies. Actually, on further thought, this gives me more confidence in snopes's ability to tease apart delicate political topics. I would be truly interested in hearing what aspects of the blog post people found convincing.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "this is clearly a Clinton smear job using snopes as a vehicle." Which statements in particular are incorrect? On the contrary, from what I read they go out of their way to note that criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defense, and that there was nothing unethical about Hillary providing one. "Now, as I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant..." They are objecting to the Snopes spin, not the actions of Clinton herself. Edit to include the salient point: The original assertion was that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case". Snopes rates this "mostly false", when it appears to actually be 100% true.
  - Goronmon 10y ago
    The issue of bias comes into play when it comes to the implied meaning behind the statements being reviewed. "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case" Statements like this are used when people are trying to criticize Clinton. They are used as evidence that she is a despicable human being, because what kind of person not only defends child rapists, but laughs about it? And I think Snopes is basically responding to the implied meaning. Is it the job of places like Snopes to only review the literal interpretation of statements being reviewed, or is their job to provide more insight and context into the matter as a whole?
bicknergseng 10y ago
It appears some of their assertions are correct, if the response disproportional. The inability to see gray area is typically a large part of the problem in a lot of political discussions, and the blogosphere is always the worst when it comes to painting something nuanced as black or white. I have no idea why I'm responding to this.
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  Thanks for responding anyway! I started to reply myself but couldn't figure out a way to phrase it without either resorting to hectoring, or getting dragged into the kind of legalistic, "rational" tarpit that's really the underlying problem. Your point is spot on.
st3v3r 10y ago
It is quite relevant, as everything they do is shaped through that past lens.
chc 10y ago
I don't know if they're a right-wing smear blog or what, but their assertions range from "wrong" to "pointlessly nit-picky," and never appear to build much of a case against Snopes. Briefly: 1. They accuse Snopes of "moving the goalposts" and "attacking straw men" by only quoting Snopes' summary of the text Snopes is responding to, and not the text in the image itself. The Snopes article includes both, so while the summary is perfunctory, it's clear where Snopes got the claims it was refuting. 2. The original claim says: "Hillary got my rapist freed. In 1980 she gave an interview where she admitted she knew he was guilty. And she laughed about it." Snopes interprets this as suggesting that Hillary laughed about the fact that she knowingly got a guilty rapist off, and their debunking is based around this interpretation. Ethics Alarms objects to Snopes' rebuttal on the grounds that Hillary laughed at some point in the interview, which seems to me to miss the point that the original image was trying to make. 3. The last point they take issue with is whether Hillary accused the girl of making it up because she enjoyed fantasizing about older men. Snopes' explanation is that this claim comes from an affidavit where Hillary merely asked for permission from the court to examine whether this might be the case, and that not to follow this avenue of inquiry after her client suggested it would have been failing to do her job. Ethics Alarms objects that by pleading "not guilty," Hillary made this accusation. Ethics Alarms then goes on to agree that Hillary acted responsibly here, so I don't even know why they're attacking Snopes on this.

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