4 ms·

Yes, maybe we have seen the same articles by them. The headlines will say "X is FALSE" implying that a claim is unilaterally false, while one can see in the ar

Yes, maybe we have seen the same articles by them. The headlines will say "X is FALSE" implying that a claim is unilaterally false, while one can see in the article's text that it's actually half-true, even more than half-true in some cases.

smsm42 7y ago
Or entirely true but they think it may lead somebody to a wrong conclusion so they declare it mostly false by implication. Or here they are actually declaring facts are not that important, much more important thing is feelings: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-enough-to-combat-fake-news/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-... (yes, I know it's guest article, but they chose to publish it) And the way to do it? Check out this spectacular "fact check" where they say "lacks concrete evidence but alludes to a deeper truth": https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-childress/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-c... And then their obnoxious habit of "fact checking" satirical publications (which they tried to pass on as actual fact check, but after being called on it resorted by just putting a label "yes, it's satire" and pretending they are doing valuable service by that).
- beerandt 7y ago
  They're pretty much all guest articles now. It's just an excuse. Same tactic as NYT publishing so much under "opinion."
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >actually declaring facts are not that important, That's not at all what the article states and you stating that in your response puts into question the rest of it. Edit: After reading the other article too, I can't see what your complaint here is. The claim is unproven and the article expounds on exactly why they made that assessment.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    The claim does not have any evidence for it whatsoever. However, instead of stating it as a fact, Snopes starts to editorialize about "deeper truth" in it, which it doesn't do in other cases where claim is presented without ay evidence. The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" (if Snopes would be consistent assigning "unproven" to every claim having no evidence behind it) and leave editorializing to non-fact-checkers.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is. They acknowledge that the specific claim has no evidence behind it but that there are, in fact, other claims that have been similarly made that do have truth to them. "False" is not the same thing as "unproven" and there's nothing that definitively proves the claim as false while, at the same time, there is evidence for other similar claims. Your responses suggest that you're not evaluating this in good faith.
      - smsm42 7y ago
        > It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is My complaint is that very frequently Snopes lists claims without proof as false. And does not editorialize about why it might be "deeper truth". But in this case, it lists the claim as "unproven" (implying it might be true, just lacking proof, despite no indication of such proof might ever be found) and does editorialize. For example, here's "false" rating: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ (chosen randomly - first "false" story I encountered on the site). Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven", since while we don't have a proof Trump ever evicted a veteran, he owns real estate, so he certainly could have. We could even editorialize about "deeper truth" in this claim, in the same vein - that not finding it in this case doesn't mean Trump couldn't have done in in other cases, and he did many other bad things, etc. But in this case Snopes correctly chose to not do it, stick to the facts and label it as "false". In the case above, regrettably, they did not.

smsm42 7y ago

Or entirely true but they think it may lead somebody to a wrong conclusion so they declare it mostly false by implication. Or here they are actually declaring facts are not that important, much more important thing is feelings: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-enough-to-combat-fake-news/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-... (yes, I know it's guest article, but they chose to publish it) And the way to do it? Check out this spectacular "fact check" where they say "lacks concrete evidence but alludes to a deeper truth": https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-childress/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-c... And then their obnoxious habit of "fact checking" satirical publications (which they tried to pass on as actual fact check, but after being called on it resorted by just putting a label "yes, it's satire" and pretending they are doing valuable service by that).

beerandt 7y ago
They're pretty much all guest articles now. It's just an excuse. Same tactic as NYT publishing so much under "opinion."
dkonofalski 7y ago
>actually declaring facts are not that important, That's not at all what the article states and you stating that in your response puts into question the rest of it. Edit: After reading the other article too, I can't see what your complaint here is. The claim is unproven and the article expounds on exactly why they made that assessment.
- smsm42 7y ago
  The claim does not have any evidence for it whatsoever. However, instead of stating it as a fact, Snopes starts to editorialize about "deeper truth" in it, which it doesn't do in other cases where claim is presented without ay evidence. The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" (if Snopes would be consistent assigning "unproven" to every claim having no evidence behind it) and leave editorializing to non-fact-checkers.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is. They acknowledge that the specific claim has no evidence behind it but that there are, in fact, other claims that have been similarly made that do have truth to them. "False" is not the same thing as "unproven" and there's nothing that definitively proves the claim as false while, at the same time, there is evidence for other similar claims. Your responses suggest that you're not evaluating this in good faith.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is My complaint is that very frequently Snopes lists claims without proof as false. And does not editorialize about why it might be "deeper truth". But in this case, it lists the claim as "unproven" (implying it might be true, just lacking proof, despite no indication of such proof might ever be found) and does editorialize. For example, here's "false" rating: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ (chosen randomly - first "false" story I encountered on the site). Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven", since while we don't have a proof Trump ever evicted a veteran, he owns real estate, so he certainly could have. We could even editorialize about "deeper truth" in this claim, in the same vein - that not finding it in this case doesn't mean Trump couldn't have done in in other cases, and he did many other bad things, etc. But in this case Snopes correctly chose to not do it, stick to the facts and label it as "false". In the case above, regrettably, they did not.