3 ms·

Snopes and Politifact are not fact-checking websites. >Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria

Snopes and Politifact are not fact-checking websites. >Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else. >While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship. 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. --- I think fact checking should be non-partisan, don't you?

savanaly 10y ago
When you want to debunk a shyster claiming he has supernatural abilities (pyschics, etc), who is the first person you should turn to? A magician. By that same logic, perhaps former spin doctors make the best fact checkers.
- ahyattdev 10y ago
  The problem is whether or not they are "former" spin doctors. One could continue their "spinning" with even more power when being put in charge of labeling media true or not.
takeda 10y ago
As long as there are references which one can independently verify, I don't see a problem with that.
rndmize 10y ago
It would be nice if you would cite your sources. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...) Your quotes look like little more than personal attacks, and a glance through Lacapria's list of articles on Snopes reveals plenty of debunking from both sides of the isle. http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ Further, the articles seem clearly written, well cited, and as factual as I would reasonably expect. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the author who wrote the article attacking her. Not that the Daily Caller looks much like a high-quality source to begin with ("conservative HuffPo" doesn't inspire confidence), but the author seems to toe the standard conservative conspiracy lines (Soros, etc.), with an fair amount of misrepresentation in his attack article. If I had some hours I'd look through his articles to see what I could find as far as accuracy, but as it stands, I'm going to go off the headlines and say Snopes probably checked some of his articles, found them wanting, and he took offense. http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/ http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/

savanaly 10y ago

When you want to debunk a shyster claiming he has supernatural abilities (pyschics, etc), who is the first person you should turn to? A magician. By that same logic, perhaps former spin doctors make the best fact checkers.

ahyattdev 10y ago
The problem is whether or not they are "former" spin doctors. One could continue their "spinning" with even more power when being put in charge of labeling media true or not.

takeda 10y ago

As long as there are references which one can independently verify, I don't see a problem with that.

rndmize 10y ago

It would be nice if you would cite your sources. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...) Your quotes look like little more than personal attacks, and a glance through Lacapria's list of articles on Snopes reveals plenty of debunking from both sides of the isle. http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ Further, the articles seem clearly written, well cited, and as factual as I would reasonably expect. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the author who wrote the article attacking her. Not that the Daily Caller looks much like a high-quality source to begin with ("conservative HuffPo" doesn't inspire confidence), but the author seems to toe the standard conservative conspiracy lines (Soros, etc.), with an fair amount of misrepresentation in his attack article. If I had some hours I'd look through his articles to see what I could find as far as accuracy, but as it stands, I'm going to go off the headlines and say Snopes probably checked some of his articles, found them wanting, and he took offense. http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/ http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/