5 ms·

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 le

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.
    - danjoc 9y ago
      >As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. "They did it first" isn't a defense. If I slapped my sibling and told mother "They did it first" I still earned punishment. What you're defending isn't defensible. Snopes clearly lied by using the false rating here. >They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. Yes, in fact, they are: http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ "This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false." The Roof situation is best described by their Mixture rating. Snopes specifically chose the false rating despite elements of truth to this story.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        I might be missing something but isn't “Police Chief Says Dylann Roof Was Taken to Burger King Shortly After Arrest.” wholly false? Where's the element of truth?
        danjoc 9y ago
        Dylan Roof was fed by police: True Dylan Roof was fed by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed fast food by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest at Burger King: False
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        They fact-checked "Police Chief Says Dylann Roof Was Taken to Burger King Shortly After Arrest." He wasn't taken to Burger King.
      - tzs 9y ago
        Snopes ratings are on the truth of the specific claims they are investigating, not on the truth of every claim in the source that contains the specific claims they are rating. The claim being reviewed in this particular case is that Roof as taken to Burger King by the police. That claim is false, and so "False" is the correct rating for Snopes to give. That the article also has other claims, and that some or all of them may be true, is irrelevant. A false claim does not get upgraded to mixed just because some different claims in the same source are not false.
- 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?

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.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. "They did it first" isn't a defense. If I slapped my sibling and told mother "They did it first" I still earned punishment. What you're defending isn't defensible. Snopes clearly lied by using the false rating here. >They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. Yes, in fact, they are: http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ "This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false." The Roof situation is best described by their Mixture rating. Snopes specifically chose the false rating despite elements of truth to this story.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      I might be missing something but isn't “Police Chief Says Dylann Roof Was Taken to Burger King Shortly After Arrest.” wholly false? Where's the element of truth?
      - danjoc 9y ago
        Dylan Roof was fed by police: True Dylan Roof was fed by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed fast food by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest: True Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest at Burger King: False
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        They fact-checked "Police Chief Says Dylann Roof Was Taken to Burger King Shortly After Arrest." He wasn't taken to Burger King.
    - tzs 9y ago
      Snopes ratings are on the truth of the specific claims they are investigating, not on the truth of every claim in the source that contains the specific claims they are rating. The claim being reviewed in this particular case is that Roof as taken to Burger King by the police. That claim is false, and so "False" is the correct rating for Snopes to give. That the article also has other claims, and that some or all of them may be true, is irrelevant. A false claim does not get upgraded to mixed just because some different claims in the same source are not false.
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?