My first indication something was wrong, was when Snopes made a determination about Hillary that smelled of journalistic corruption. http://www.snopes.com/hill

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