5 ms·

You need to be more specific with your criticisms and provide some support for the "after being busted stealing" part. For one, that has no bearing or relevance

You need to be more specific with your criticisms and provide some support for the "after being busted stealing" part. For one, that has no bearing or relevance on whether the claim is true or not. Secondly, whether they were "banned" or not is irrelevant as the actual claim is shown, in full, right on the page. Whether the claim is "banned" or whether it was that the "DNC announced the flag may not be worn or waved" matters little if both claims are objectively false.

beerandt 7y ago
If they plagiarized the image from a website with a caption saying "day 2", and Snopes claims it's from "day 1", that has no bearing on their credibility? The pic was from cspan, via a media matters story from day 2 that was pulled after all the attention. That's at least 3 degrees of dishonesty, from a website who depends on it's reputation. Here's the original claim: That same day, Snopes writer Dan Evon wrote a “fact-check” article declaring it “false” that: “No American flags were on display in stage at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.” (posted on day one) The whole point is they changed the question to fit the answer they wanted.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >that has no bearing on their credibility If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn't make a distinction between the days. It simply says that the flags weren't allowed at the convention which is objectively false. Even if I assume that this statement is true - (“No American flags were on display in stage at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.” (posted on day one)) - the claim is still 100% false as there is video evidence that shows that the screens did in fact show American flags on both Day 1 and Day 2. >That's at least 3 degrees of dishonesty, from a website who depends on it's reputation. Your links, claims, and responses don't support any kind of assertion of dishonesty. They may have made a mistake in captioning a Day 2 image as Day 1 but nothing suggests, at all, that this was anything more than a mistake as opposed to something that was intentionally malicious. Additionally, after seeing the rest of your responses, I don't think you're arguing this in good faith at all. You have yet to provide any kind of evidence that changes were made to re-frame the articles.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn't make a distinction between the days. It simply says that the flags weren't allowed at the convention which is objectively false. The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. If I'm understanding this comment chain correctly, of course.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Exactly. And there was originally no specific day mentioned, because the original claim was made on and about day one, which at the time, was the only day.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. That's what I said in my response, though. Even if the original claim was that "there wasn't a flag present", that claim is still false as there is demonstrable proof that shows there were plenty of flags present on both Day 1 and Day 2. Even if the original claim was "flags were banned" or "flags were banned on Day 1", it doesn't change the fact that the piece would still be labelled as "False". If people are claiming that Snopes is changing either the claims or the content to get a desired result, they need to show some kind of evidence for that. The only thing that they've shown is that Snopes has changed the claim despite the fact that the result is still the same. They're attributing editorial changes to malice rather than clarity. To be clear, if the claim was originally "Flags were banned" and they changed it to "Flags were banned for Day 1" because it lets them call it false, that might be cause for a call of malice. The evidence, though, shows that any variation of "flags were banned" or "flags weren't present" is not true because there are photos and videos that clearly show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2. Any change from either of those headings to the current heading would still be 100% accurate as far as the assessment is concerned.

beerandt 7y ago

If they plagiarized the image from a website with a caption saying "day 2", and Snopes claims it's from "day 1", that has no bearing on their credibility? The pic was from cspan, via a media matters story from day 2 that was pulled after all the attention. That's at least 3 degrees of dishonesty, from a website who depends on it's reputation. Here's the original claim: That same day, Snopes writer Dan Evon wrote a “fact-check” article declaring it “false” that: “No American flags were on display in stage at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.” (posted on day one) The whole point is they changed the question to fit the answer they wanted.

dkonofalski 7y ago
>that has no bearing on their credibility If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn't make a distinction between the days. It simply says that the flags weren't allowed at the convention which is objectively false. Even if I assume that this statement is true - (“No American flags were on display in stage at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.” (posted on day one)) - the claim is still 100% false as there is video evidence that shows that the screens did in fact show American flags on both Day 1 and Day 2. >That's at least 3 degrees of dishonesty, from a website who depends on it's reputation. Your links, claims, and responses don't support any kind of assertion of dishonesty. They may have made a mistake in captioning a Day 2 image as Day 1 but nothing suggests, at all, that this was anything more than a mistake as opposed to something that was intentionally malicious. Additionally, after seeing the rest of your responses, I don't think you're arguing this in good faith at all. You have yet to provide any kind of evidence that changes were made to re-frame the articles.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > If it changes the context or response to the claim, then yes it does. In this case, whether it's from Day 1 or Day 2 is irrelevant as the original claim doesn't make a distinction between the days. It simply says that the flags weren't allowed at the convention which is objectively false. The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. If I'm understanding this comment chain correctly, of course.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Exactly. And there was originally no specific day mentioned, because the original claim was made on and about day one, which at the time, was the only day.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >The point is that that wasn't the original claim - the original claim was that there wasn't a flag present, and then snopes changed it to something similar but false to get the desired result. That's what I said in my response, though. Even if the original claim was that "there wasn't a flag present", that claim is still false as there is demonstrable proof that shows there were plenty of flags present on both Day 1 and Day 2. Even if the original claim was "flags were banned" or "flags were banned on Day 1", it doesn't change the fact that the piece would still be labelled as "False". If people are claiming that Snopes is changing either the claims or the content to get a desired result, they need to show some kind of evidence for that. The only thing that they've shown is that Snopes has changed the claim despite the fact that the result is still the same. They're attributing editorial changes to malice rather than clarity. To be clear, if the claim was originally "Flags were banned" and they changed it to "Flags were banned for Day 1" because it lets them call it false, that might be cause for a call of malice. The evidence, though, shows that any variation of "flags were banned" or "flags weren't present" is not true because there are photos and videos that clearly show they were present for both Day 1 and Day 2. Any change from either of those headings to the current heading would still be 100% accurate as far as the assessment is concerned.