4 ms·

Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?

by croon 9y ago

fareesh 9y ago
I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
- gowld 9y ago
  I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
  - fareesh 9y ago
    I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
    - gowld 8y ago
      You keep stretching your argument so far, I can only thank you for linking to sources, since reading them disproves your claim. In the opt link, it's a "news" item, not a "Fact-check" with a ruling. You pick out mild vague statements as "discrediting", while ignoring all the major points and claims in the Snopes articles. The second link is a fact-check, which we can all agree (right") is an accurate fact-check FB banned a self-identified obvious satire article being reposted out of context as non-satire. Can you find an example of FB banning a non-fake article based on Snopes' ruling? Again, what's the problem here?
nickysielicki 9y ago
I wrote an angry email to a Politifact intern after seeing this article: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/fellowship-minds/no-march-our-lives-demonstration-was-not-prepared-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/... They rated this article as "pants on fire" for reporting on something that came directly from the mouth of a public official. The politifact intern actually reached out to the official in question and he personally confirmed that he gave the outlet bad information, and yet it retains the rating that insinuates intentional lying and misleading. I think it's infuriating that Google is getting away with giving these institutions an elevated voice. They do not hold an ounce of the journalistic integrity that they claim to and they make little effort to be nonpartisan. edit: The issue isn't with any particular institution, it's the general problem of any authority claiming to be an objective purveyor of truth and Google giving anyone like that an elevated voice. Even if it's not corrupt now, it's corruptible, and it serves no purpose. People need to come to decisions on their own. (edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  And this has to do Snopes getting something wrong...how?
- danso 9y ago
  I don't understand your objection. The Politifact assessment of "pants on fire" is not for the public official, it's for the conspiracy websites that are peddling the public official's mistake to intentionally mislead people. Read the end of the article ("Our ruling"): > A website pushing conspiracy theories claimed that the March For Our Lives permit was actually prepared months in advance. > We contacted the police officer referred to in the story who confirmed that the story is inaccurate and the permit was actually issued 11 days prior to the march. > We rate this story Pants on Fire. The police officer said they made an honest mistake. The websites that are spreading the mistake have ostensibly ignored the correction. How is that not intentional?
bbitmaster 9y ago
Snopes is very quick to claim things as "False" if it goes against their left leaning lens of the world. As an example arguments used by pro-gun advocates are marked as false. Here's a specific example: They falsify a claim that doctors kill more people than guns https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-than-guns/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-t... Yet this article linked on hacker news article states that medical error is the third biggest cause of death in the USA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627213 I used to have many more examples, but the reality is that the facts that they "objectively" check aren't necessarily unbiased.
- gowld 9y ago
  IIRC, that "250K people killed by medical error" includes every time a medical caregiver failed to prevent an already sick or injured individual from dying and didn't follow ideal procedures in retrospect. One of the examples was "the doctor didn't tell a patient with heart disease that jogging would be dangerous, and then the guy had a heart attack while jogging". That's like saying that "hospitals cause most cancer deaths" because people who have cancer are in the care of professionals before they expire. People who die from guns aren't being euthanized from already impending death.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    IIRC the gun death statistic also includes criminals who are shot by police in shootouts and other situations where use of lethal force is deemed necessary. I don't think it is reasonable to imply that these people would be alive were it not for gun regulations.

Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?

by croon 9y ago

Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?

I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

gowld 9y ago
I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
- fareesh 9y ago
  I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
  - gowld 8y ago
    You keep stretching your argument so far, I can only thank you for linking to sources, since reading them disproves your claim. In the opt link, it's a "news" item, not a "Fact-check" with a ruling. You pick out mild vague statements as "discrediting", while ignoring all the major points and claims in the Snopes articles. The second link is a fact-check, which we can all agree (right") is an accurate fact-check FB banned a self-identified obvious satire article being reposted out of context as non-satire. Can you find an example of FB banning a non-fake article based on Snopes' ruling? Again, what's the problem here?

nickysielicki 9y ago

I wrote an angry email to a Politifact intern after seeing this article: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/fellowship-minds/no-march-our-lives-demonstration-was-not-prepared-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/... They rated this article as "pants on fire" for reporting on something that came directly from the mouth of a public official. The politifact intern actually reached out to the official in question and he personally confirmed that he gave the outlet bad information, and yet it retains the rating that insinuates intentional lying and misleading. I think it's infuriating that Google is getting away with giving these institutions an elevated voice. They do not hold an ounce of the journalistic integrity that they claim to and they make little effort to be nonpartisan. edit: The issue isn't with any particular institution, it's the general problem of any authority claiming to be an objective purveyor of truth and Google giving anyone like that an elevated voice. Even if it's not corrupt now, it's corruptible, and it serves no purpose. People need to come to decisions on their own. (edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)

dragonwriter 9y ago
And this has to do Snopes getting something wrong...how?
danso 9y ago
I don't understand your objection. The Politifact assessment of "pants on fire" is not for the public official, it's for the conspiracy websites that are peddling the public official's mistake to intentionally mislead people. Read the end of the article ("Our ruling"): > A website pushing conspiracy theories claimed that the March For Our Lives permit was actually prepared months in advance. > We contacted the police officer referred to in the story who confirmed that the story is inaccurate and the permit was actually issued 11 days prior to the march. > We rate this story Pants on Fire. The police officer said they made an honest mistake. The websites that are spreading the mistake have ostensibly ignored the correction. How is that not intentional?

bbitmaster 9y ago

Snopes is very quick to claim things as "False" if it goes against their left leaning lens of the world. As an example arguments used by pro-gun advocates are marked as false. Here's a specific example: They falsify a claim that doctors kill more people than guns https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-than-guns/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-t... Yet this article linked on hacker news article states that medical error is the third biggest cause of death in the USA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627213 I used to have many more examples, but the reality is that the facts that they "objectively" check aren't necessarily unbiased.

gowld 9y ago
IIRC, that "250K people killed by medical error" includes every time a medical caregiver failed to prevent an already sick or injured individual from dying and didn't follow ideal procedures in retrospect. One of the examples was "the doctor didn't tell a patient with heart disease that jogging would be dangerous, and then the guy had a heart attack while jogging". That's like saying that "hospitals cause most cancer deaths" because people who have cancer are in the care of professionals before they expire. People who die from guns aren't being euthanized from already impending death.
- fareesh 8y ago
  IIRC the gun death statistic also includes criminals who are shot by police in shootouts and other situations where use of lethal force is deemed necessary. I don't think it is reasonable to imply that these people would be alive were it not for gun regulations.