3 ms·

Yeah, I think Snopes is a much more credible source than the chief of police here.

aww_dang 6y ago
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c... https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death-spiral-presenting-the-straw-man-fact-check/ https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954 https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site%3Asnopes.com https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site...
- GeneralMayhem 6y ago
  Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders. >https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c... Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here. >ethicsalarms.com This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around: >>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government. >>>Pelosi’s Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another >>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public. Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on: >Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee As Snopes says: >There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name. However, ESPN’s intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head off. What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist organization, and that Snopes is covering for them? >Google search for "snopes strawman" The top results for me are, in order: 1. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman. 2. Snopes's own Facebook page 3. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones? https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-snopes/ https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-s... 4. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above. 5. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    >This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around: >>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government. In your view is CNN not partisan? In regards to Robert Lee, like other misleading fact checks, the objection wasn't that he was fired. People were observing that it was misguided. I think we should be able to have this discussion without terms like "batshit right-wing conspiracy theory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%2093 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
- santoshalper 6y ago
  "Correct me if I am wrong, Snopes, you pathetic fools" -EthicsAlarms Clearly you are citing some high-quality, objective journalism here my friend. Whoever writes for that web site needs medication and therapy. It is legit unhinged. None of these links are sources. The first two are just editorials, the second one is practically frothing at the mouth. The Robert Lee ones are pretty interesting, though. I think Snopes did an OK job of covering that particular story, though not ideal in my analysis. They pointed out that Mr. Lee was not actually fired by ESPN (he was not) and that ESPN was trying to avoid potential embarrassment and in the process ended up embarrassing themselves more - which is exactly what happened. ESPN hired the guy, they clearly weren't offended by his name. They thought they were covering their asses and ended up making asses of themselves. All over an imagined issue that was really a non-issue. That said, there is more opinion in that Snopes article than I would like. I'm don't think Snopes' best and highest function is to try to explain why ESPN behaved the way they did (unless they have facts to share). That said, their analysis seems sound. Really, your links are kind of the opposite of sources. All you've proven is that many people do not trust Snopes or any other news source when they don't like what it says. More News at 11 folks. p.s. - it's garbage in, garbage out. Your brain deserves better input than that.
dependenttypes 6y ago
Snopes is one of the least credible sources that you can find. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 (also, note that "professionally organize riots" might as well mean that they are good at organizing them, or that they helped organize multiple riots)
- evilos 6y ago
  That's a pretty weak set of evidence you have there for a claim as big as 'Snopes is ONE OF THE LEAST credible sources that you can find', emphasis mine.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I am not aware of any other site that is both excluded by the internet archive and has been found in the past to engage in dishonest attempts of covering up its mistakes. I would argue that both of them combined is quite a strong of an evidence for my claim.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c... https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death-spiral-presenting-the-straw-man-fact-check/ https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/08/31/snopes-credibility-death... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954 https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site%3Asnopes.com https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22snopes%22+strawman+-site...

GeneralMayhem 6y ago
Hoo boy, that's a hot pile of garbage. I'm obviously not going to convince you, but I'll get my hands dirty for the sake of bystanders. >https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-checkers_choice_to_be_literal_or_contextual_138913.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/13/fact-c... Yes, fact-checking is hard. You can say things that are literally true but clearly imply false conclusions, or vice versa. And Snopes isn't perfect. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be getting here. >ethicsalarms.com This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Anyone who cites it as an argument should immediately lose all semblance of credibility. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around: >>>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government. >>>Pelosi’s Democrats have orchestrated one attempted coup after another >>>There have been 19 Plans to abuse various processes, laws and theories, all put forward and promoted by members of the Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance since President Trump’s election in November of 2016... The desired effect of this barrage, apart from serving the goal of removing an elected President without the bother (and risk) of an election, has been to make it impossible for the President to govern, and to destroy his support among the public. Yep. Fair and balanced, and definitely not unhinged. Moving on: >Snopes and BBC articles about a commentator named Robert Lee As Snopes says: >There is no dispute that Robert Lee was moved off covering a University of Virginia football game for ESPN because of the coincidence of his name. However, ESPN’s intent appeared to have been a desire to avoid prompting public ridicule rather than public offense — a move that ended up subjecting the network (for different reasons) to the very mocking they had hoped to head off. What else am I supposed to be seeing here? A megacorp attempted to sidestep a potentially awkward situation, and ran into the Striesand effect. Both Snopes and the BBC pointed out that it was maybe misguided, and we all had a chuckle at their expense. Do you think that Disney, of all companies, is a leftist organization, and that Snopes is covering for them? >Google search for "snopes strawman" The top results for me are, in order: 1. A bunch of Reddit results referring people to Snopes as a source because the thing they're arguing against is a made-up strawman. 2. Snopes's own Facebook page 3. A blog nitpicking semantics over... Amelia Earhart's bones? https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-snopes/ https://tighar.org/wordpress/earhart-project/fact-checking-s... 4. ethicsalarms.com, discussed above. 5. "A Guide to Arguing with a Snopes Denier", from the Houston Press
- aww_dang 6y ago
  >This is a batshit right-wing conspiracy theory site. Here are some direct quotes from that site that I found within the first 60 seconds of clicking around: >>CNN is obviously approaching the election as a partisan mission, and has signaled that fair coverage is not in the cards. The goal is to put Democrats in control of the government. In your view is CNN not partisan? In regards to Robert Lee, like other misleading fact checks, the objection wasn't that he was fired. People were observing that it was misguided. I think we should be able to have this discussion without terms like "batshit right-wing conspiracy theory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%2093 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
santoshalper 6y ago
"Correct me if I am wrong, Snopes, you pathetic fools" -EthicsAlarms Clearly you are citing some high-quality, objective journalism here my friend. Whoever writes for that web site needs medication and therapy. It is legit unhinged. None of these links are sources. The first two are just editorials, the second one is practically frothing at the mouth. The Robert Lee ones are pretty interesting, though. I think Snopes did an OK job of covering that particular story, though not ideal in my analysis. They pointed out that Mr. Lee was not actually fired by ESPN (he was not) and that ESPN was trying to avoid potential embarrassment and in the process ended up embarrassing themselves more - which is exactly what happened. ESPN hired the guy, they clearly weren't offended by his name. They thought they were covering their asses and ended up making asses of themselves. All over an imagined issue that was really a non-issue. That said, there is more opinion in that Snopes article than I would like. I'm don't think Snopes' best and highest function is to try to explain why ESPN behaved the way they did (unless they have facts to share). That said, their analysis seems sound. Really, your links are kind of the opposite of sources. All you've proven is that many people do not trust Snopes or any other news source when they don't like what it says. More News at 11 folks. p.s. - it's garbage in, garbage out. Your brain deserves better input than that.

dependenttypes 6y ago

Snopes is one of the least credible sources that you can find. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 (also, note that "professionally organize riots" might as well mean that they are good at organizing them, or that they helped organize multiple riots)

evilos 6y ago
That's a pretty weak set of evidence you have there for a claim as big as 'Snopes is ONE OF THE LEAST credible sources that you can find', emphasis mine.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I am not aware of any other site that is both excluded by the internet archive and has been found in the past to engage in dishonest attempts of covering up its mistakes. I would argue that both of them combined is quite a strong of an evidence for my claim.