4 ms·

A lot of the responses here seem to be attempting to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) on the fact-checking articles themselves (which were not in any way

A lot of the responses here seem to be attempting to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) on the fact-checking articles themselves (which were not in any way implicated by the revelations of this article). As if there is some kind of "essence" that permeates an orgainization which either wholly condemns it or wholly justifies it. I reject this assessment. Every article stands or falls on its own.

least 5y ago
Sort of. In a vacuum it can certainly function that way, but people in reality don't necessarily have the time to distill pure water from poisoned wells, especially when there's a well that is reputably pure right next to it. That being said, I think that buzzfeed news has actually earned a reputation of producing some good journalism despite it being an offshoot of Buzzfeed. Simply the irony is not lost on these people.
betwixthewires 5y ago
When we call some information source "reputable" we are saying that we are relying on their reputation of having integrity so as to not have to dig into every detail of everything ourselves. Every article linked on godlike productions stands on it's own as well by this logic. If we go by this logic there is no reputable or disreputable organization, there are only articles. Of course that defeats the whole purpose of branding your organization, so even in this case there is no reason to trust Snopes or any other fact checker, there's no reason for fact checking because you have to fact check the fact checks yourself as every article stands on it's own. But of course that's not how it works. We rely on brands like Snopes because we trust them, because we view them as having a reputation of integrity. So it isn't fud to point out that there are shameless bald faced liars without an ounce of integrity at all running the organization.

4 ms·

A lot of the responses here seem to be attempting to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) on the fact-checking articles themselves (which were not in any way

by ezekiel68 5y ago

least 5y ago
Sort of. In a vacuum it can certainly function that way, but people in reality don't necessarily have the time to distill pure water from poisoned wells, especially when there's a well that is reputably pure right next to it. That being said, I think that buzzfeed news has actually earned a reputation of producing some good journalism despite it being an offshoot of Buzzfeed. Simply the irony is not lost on these people.
betwixthewires 5y ago
When we call some information source "reputable" we are saying that we are relying on their reputation of having integrity so as to not have to dig into every detail of everything ourselves. Every article linked on godlike productions stands on it's own as well by this logic. If we go by this logic there is no reputable or disreputable organization, there are only articles. Of course that defeats the whole purpose of branding your organization, so even in this case there is no reason to trust Snopes or any other fact checker, there's no reason for fact checking because you have to fact check the fact checks yourself as every article stands on it's own. But of course that's not how it works. We rely on brands like Snopes because we trust them, because we view them as having a reputation of integrity. So it isn't fud to point out that there are shameless bald faced liars without an ounce of integrity at all running the organization.