5 ms·

Snopes does seem to be struggling with impartiality recently, so I don't feel as bad about this as I otherwise would.

gumby 9y ago
Are you sure, or are you just seeing more articles that disagree with your preconceptions? I don't see it, but it could be that I am in a bit of a bubble, so I ask in the hope of checking that.
- egberts1 9y ago
  Yep. In a bubble, you are.
  - gumby 9y ago
    Could you give some examples?
- doctorless 9y ago
  It's a little bit of both, honestly. They have definitely taken a strong political position as of late, which has resulted in instances where they've ignored legitimate sources that agreed with the rumor they are trying to dispel, and allowed sources suffering from "citogenesis"-like qualities because it agreed with their views. I look forward to a future snopes-like site which is completely impartial, but unfortunately impartiality is very difficult to exhibit when the subject matter is frequently very subjective.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Citation please.
    - danjoc 9y ago
      Snopes labeled this entirely false: http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/ http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/ Dylan Roof was treated to Burger King. Snopes seized on the wording "taken to" Burger King, and give it the big red X. Not mostly false, not mixed, but entirely false. That's all most people will ever see. They won't read down the page. Confirmation bias has been confirmed at that point. Roof was given body armor, Burger King, and additional guards. Freddie Grey wasn't so lucky. That was the original point of the article Snopes wouldn't link to. http://thesource.com/2015/06/21/police-chief-says-dylann-roof-was-taken-to-burger-king-shortly-after-arrest/ http://thesource.com/2015/06/21/police-chief-says-dylann-roo... Snopes is that guy on a message board who thinks he won the argument by being a grammar Nazi. That's what people who don't like Snopes find infuriating.
      - tzs 9y ago
        You seem to think that "taken to" vs. "brought food from" is a minor or insignificant difference. It is not. People in custody must be provided with food and water. If a suspect is being held somewhere where food is not readily available on the premises, it is normal and expected that someone will be sent out to get food. What is not normal is to take the suspect out to get food. The headline of the article at The Source says he was "taken to" Burger King. As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. It's that headline that gets spread through tweets and social media. Even if people do read down the page at The Source, they won't get the mistaken impression that Roof was taken to Burger King dispelled, because further in they say he "was treated to a meal at Burger King". They also say he "was arrested, strapped with a protective bulletproof vest, then treated to burgers and fries", which gives the impression that that he was taken to the food (hence the need for the vest), rather than the food being brought to him. Maybe The Source did not intend to mislead, but in fact they did, as can be seen by looking at other articles and social media reports that repeated the "taken to" Burger King narrative, which mostly seem to trace back to The Source article. I think you also may be misunderstanding the scope of Snopes' "false" rating. They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. They are specifically addressing whether or not Roof was taken to Burger King, because that's what was being spread via multiple other outlets and on social media. That is what they are saying is "false". And they are right.
    - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
      http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-iraq-war/ http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-iraq-war/ vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8
      - tzs 9y ago
        The question Snopes was answering: "Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003". Snopes says this is false. The video you linked is an excerpt from a Trump interview where he mostly waffles on whether we should attack Iraq. The closest he comes to opposing the war is saying that perhaps we shouldn't do it yet and perhaps should wait for the UN. In what universe is that "strong" opposition? Strong is perhaps a fuzzy term, but the context is Trump making claims like this one during one of the GOP debates: "I’m the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.’ Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong".
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - jack9 9y ago
        Factually, his opposition to Iraq was not publicly strong prior to 2003. As is classic for Trump, in 20015 he claims the opposite, despite his purposeful equivocation. This is a strategy he employs to cover all his bases whenever possible.
  - kej 9y ago
    Do you have any specific examples?
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Strongly pro-Clinton/anti-Trump flavour recently, and I say this as someone not based in the US and thus with no real stake in the topic.
sumedh 9y ago
Can you post some examples?
- jack9 9y ago
  My first indication something was wrong, was when Snopes made a determination about Hillary that smelled of journalistic corruption. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/ Snopes gave their own interpretation of the facts and intent as context, rather than the factual details which lined up ("mostly true" in other matters). I like the idea of an impartial fact checking body, but this partisan bend has gotten worse over time. Factcheck is at least able to recognize that much of the "fake news" is about misinterpretation, rather than the easily abused double-plus-good simplification that Snopes adopted for the ignorant masses (I can only assume). YMMV
  - sumedh 9y ago
    Thanks, looks like some Clinton supporters are downvoting us :)

Are you sure, or are you just seeing more articles that disagree with your preconceptions? I don't see it, but it could be that I am in a bit of a bubble, so I ask in the hope of checking that.

egberts1 9y ago
Yep. In a bubble, you are.
- gumby 9y ago
  Could you give some examples?
doctorless 9y ago
It's a little bit of both, honestly. They have definitely taken a strong political position as of late, which has resulted in instances where they've ignored legitimate sources that agreed with the rumor they are trying to dispel, and allowed sources suffering from "citogenesis"-like qualities because it agreed with their views. I look forward to a future snopes-like site which is completely impartial, but unfortunately impartiality is very difficult to exhibit when the subject matter is frequently very subjective.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Citation please.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    Snopes labeled this entirely false: http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/ http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/ Dylan Roof was treated to Burger King. Snopes seized on the wording "taken to" Burger King, and give it the big red X. Not mostly false, not mixed, but entirely false. That's all most people will ever see. They won't read down the page. Confirmation bias has been confirmed at that point. Roof was given body armor, Burger King, and additional guards. Freddie Grey wasn't so lucky. That was the original point of the article Snopes wouldn't link to. http://thesource.com/2015/06/21/police-chief-says-dylann-roof-was-taken-to-burger-king-shortly-after-arrest/ http://thesource.com/2015/06/21/police-chief-says-dylann-roo... Snopes is that guy on a message board who thinks he won the argument by being a grammar Nazi. That's what people who don't like Snopes find infuriating.
    - tzs 9y ago
      You seem to think that "taken to" vs. "brought food from" is a minor or insignificant difference. It is not. People in custody must be provided with food and water. If a suspect is being held somewhere where food is not readily available on the premises, it is normal and expected that someone will be sent out to get food. What is not normal is to take the suspect out to get food. The headline of the article at The Source says he was "taken to" Burger King. As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. It's that headline that gets spread through tweets and social media. Even if people do read down the page at The Source, they won't get the mistaken impression that Roof was taken to Burger King dispelled, because further in they say he "was treated to a meal at Burger King". They also say he "was arrested, strapped with a protective bulletproof vest, then treated to burgers and fries", which gives the impression that that he was taken to the food (hence the need for the vest), rather than the food being brought to him. Maybe The Source did not intend to mislead, but in fact they did, as can be seen by looking at other articles and social media reports that repeated the "taken to" Burger King narrative, which mostly seem to trace back to The Source article. I think you also may be misunderstanding the scope of Snopes' "false" rating. They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. They are specifically addressing whether or not Roof was taken to Burger King, because that's what was being spread via multiple other outlets and on social media. That is what they are saying is "false". And they are right.
  - retrogradeorbit 9y ago
    http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-iraq-war/ http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-iraq-war/ vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8
    - tzs 9y ago
      The question Snopes was answering: "Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003". Snopes says this is false. The video you linked is an excerpt from a Trump interview where he mostly waffles on whether we should attack Iraq. The closest he comes to opposing the war is saying that perhaps we shouldn't do it yet and perhaps should wait for the UN. In what universe is that "strong" opposition? Strong is perhaps a fuzzy term, but the context is Trump making claims like this one during one of the GOP debates: "I’m the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.’ Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong".
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - jack9 9y ago
      Factually, his opposition to Iraq was not publicly strong prior to 2003. As is classic for Trump, in 20015 he claims the opposite, despite his purposeful equivocation. This is a strategy he employs to cover all his bases whenever possible.
- kej 9y ago
  Do you have any specific examples?
Boothroid 9y ago
Strongly pro-Clinton/anti-Trump flavour recently, and I say this as someone not based in the US and thus with no real stake in the topic.

sumedh 9y ago

Can you post some examples?

jack9 9y ago
My first indication something was wrong, was when Snopes made a determination about Hillary that smelled of journalistic corruption. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/ Snopes gave their own interpretation of the facts and intent as context, rather than the factual details which lined up ("mostly true" in other matters). I like the idea of an impartial fact checking body, but this partisan bend has gotten worse over time. Factcheck is at least able to recognize that much of the "fake news" is about misinterpretation, rather than the easily abused double-plus-good simplification that Snopes adopted for the ignorant masses (I can only assume). YMMV
- sumedh 9y ago
  Thanks, looks like some Clinton supporters are downvoting us :)