When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility. Snopes is

When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility. Snopes is no longer a wholly credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-.. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... [snopes.com] - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect by their own measure. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys (backpedal apologizing), so whatever. That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent/recent narrative?