I hate to go back to the recent elections, but that's probably when Snopes lost a significant amount of reputation in my book. It's not that they're mis-report

I hate to go back to the recent elections, but that's probably when Snopes lost a significant amount of reputation in my book. It's not that they're mis-reporting, but there's a complete mismatch between what they claim to be fact, and what the "rating" is. For example: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... The claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case. What's true: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later. What's false: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant. The language used is already terribly biased. Young Hillary reluctantly defended this child rapist and she merely chuckled - not laughed - chuckled! Snopes verdict: Mostly False. What? What worries me is that when Google and others use Snopes they're not looking at what Snopes reports, just the "verdict". If I read that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." is "mostly false", I'm not going to assume that it's mostly false because she chuckled instead of laughed, I'm going to assume it's mostly false because she did not defend an accused child rapist.