4 ms·

A pretty bizarre opinion at that. They seem to be suggesting that all of those knighted with "fact checker" status should be above criticism/investigation, and

A pretty bizarre opinion at that. They seem to be suggesting that all of those knighted with "fact checker" status should be above criticism/investigation, and anyone who does shine a light at them is just "afraid of the truth." I happen to think that the founder of Snopes embezzling $98K and spending it on prostitutes is relevant, as it throws their entire journalistic credibility into question.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc. So the founder of Snopes may be financially dishonest and driven by sex thrills...but this doesn't invalidate their research on external questions. It's not like I looked to them for moral guidance about, well, anything.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I'm going to answer this question under the assumption that you truly don't understand some of the core tenets regarding journalistic integrity. On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual". This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please edit personal swipes, such as the first sentence here, out of the comments you post to HN. This comment would be fine without that.
    - cloakandswagger 10y ago
      That disclaimer was only there so the rest of the post wouldn't seem patronizing.
      - dang 10y ago
        Interpretations always differ, but that statement does seem patronizing to me. Communicating in a large internet forum is quite different than in small groups or in person. Among other things, it's much harder to communicate intent, so it's best to either (a) state intent explicitly or (b) edit the post so that it isn't so vulnerable to crossed signals.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        Perhaps you should have focused more on avoiding a false equivalence of fact-checking with journalism, as if a) Snopes were an originator of news and rumors rather than being responsive to them, and b) their popularity relied on a perception of the founders' personal integrity as opposed to a history of providing verifiable links to contrary information and narrowly reasoned argument.
- BummyMon 10y ago
  Which is the correct approach if you need a debunking of whether there are alligators in the swears, but if they are expanding their business to fact checking moralistic/political claims, how would that then differ from you seeking them for for moral guidance?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    if they are expanding their business to fact checking moralistic/political claims I'll worry about that if/when it happens. I have no difficulty distinguishing between factual and editorial content, and I generally only consult Snopes after I've done some research of my own and drawn a preliminary conclusion.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc. So the founder of Snopes may be financially dishonest and driven by sex thrills...but this doesn't invalidate their research on external questions. It's not like I looked to them for moral guidance about, well, anything.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
I'm going to answer this question under the assumption that you truly don't understand some of the core tenets regarding journalistic integrity. On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual". This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.
- dang 10y ago
  Please edit personal swipes, such as the first sentence here, out of the comments you post to HN. This comment would be fine without that.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    That disclaimer was only there so the rest of the post wouldn't seem patronizing.
    - dang 10y ago
      Interpretations always differ, but that statement does seem patronizing to me. Communicating in a large internet forum is quite different than in small groups or in person. Among other things, it's much harder to communicate intent, so it's best to either (a) state intent explicitly or (b) edit the post so that it isn't so vulnerable to crossed signals.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Perhaps you should have focused more on avoiding a false equivalence of fact-checking with journalism, as if a) Snopes were an originator of news and rumors rather than being responsive to them, and b) their popularity relied on a perception of the founders' personal integrity as opposed to a history of providing verifiable links to contrary information and narrowly reasoned argument.
BummyMon 10y ago
Which is the correct approach if you need a debunking of whether there are alligators in the swears, but if they are expanding their business to fact checking moralistic/political claims, how would that then differ from you seeking them for for moral guidance?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  if they are expanding their business to fact checking moralistic/political claims I'll worry about that if/when it happens. I have no difficulty distinguishing between factual and editorial content, and I generally only consult Snopes after I've done some research of my own and drawn a preliminary conclusion.