2 ms·

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, with

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 8y 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 8y 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?

gowld 8y 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 8y 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?