Snopes got snoped!

[ohio herd]

3-2-1 here comes EG!!!!

http://www.chicksontheright.com/mai...d-liberal-who-called-tea-partiers-teahadists/

reputable source LOL LOL LOL come on libs you dont have any good sources

 

[extragreen]

3-2-1 here comes EG!!!!

http://www.chicksontheright.com/mai...d-liberal-who-called-tea-partiers-teahadists/

reputable source LOL LOL LOL come on libs you dont have any good sources

Which is exactly why that when I know you are a self described conservative, I know that if your mouth is moving you are lying. Because being a conservative negates any possibility whatsoever that you can tell the unbiased truth about a single thing.

 

[wisemaniac]

Who checks snopes for anything other than internet scams? Seriously, who? Is it the same people who require a site like Vox to explain news to them?

 

[extragreen]

"Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction"

"In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories"

"And though Snopes arguably deserves the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible"

"major news organizations such as the Associated Press and MSNBC cite Snopes as a definitive source for determining accuracy in suspicious stories"

"U.S. senator recently dismissed an issue as significant as determining the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president based on the word of Snopes."

 

[wisemaniac]

If you can't tell Snopes has a bias, Bernie Sanders was right about you. Snopes has a solid reputation for debunking a lot of internet chain letters, but if someone were to present Snopes as a resource for anything more substantial, be weary.

 

[extragreen]

If you can't tell Snopes has a bias, Bernie Sanders was right about you. Snopes has a solid reputation for debunking a lot of internet chain letters, but if someone were to present Snopes as a resource for anything more substantial, be weary.

So, you're more knowledgeable about snopes than the AP, a U S senator, and other fact checking sites. Got it.

 

[wisemaniac]

So, you're more knowledgeable about snopes than the AP, a U S senator, and other fact checking sites. Got it.

Like I said, Snopes is great for checking certain things & has a reputation as such. But not for substantive issues. Sorry you're new to the internet. And the AP also has a reputation. The phrase you can't spell crap with AP is hardly new. Given the reputation Senators have, how can anyone not trust them?

 

[GK4Herd]

Like I said, Snopes is great for checking certain things & has a reputation as such. But not for substantive issues. Sorry you're new to the internet. And the AP also has a reputation. The phrase you can't spell crap with AP is hardly new. Given the reputation Senators have, how can anyone not trust them?

I use Snopes to debunk stuff that just instinctively feels wrong all the time. The site uses fairly substantive amounts of information when it debunks something and nothing changes in my opinion as far as as using it for misattributed quotes and sensational claims that just doesn't feel right. Now that being said, I'm very disappointed with the latest revelation that it is politically and ideologically tainted. But that doesn't change the fact that the site nails the fact checking part of what it does. We either landed on the moon or we didn't. John Kennedy either said, "insert quote here" or he didn't. I believe Snopes gets that right. But it wouldn't take a large amount of awareness to weed out the political leanings of Snopes presentation and still take value from its research.

But like I said....I'm disappointed that Snopes is obviously biased and leaning. Any other good fact checker sites?

 

[wisemaniac]

I use Snopes to debunk stuff that just instinctively feels wrong all the time. The site uses fairly substantive amounts of information when it debunks something and nothing changes in my opinion as far as as using it for misattributed quotes and sensational claims that just doesn't feel right. Now that being said, I'm very disappointed with the latest revelation that it is politically and ideologically tainted. But that doesn't change the fact that the site nails the fact checking part of what it does. We either landed on the moon or we didn't. John Kennedy either said, "insert quote here" or he didn't. I believe Snopes gets that right. But it wouldn't take a large amount of awareness to weed out the political leanings of Snopes presentation and still take value from its research.

But like I said....I'm disappointed that Snopes is obviously biased and leaning. Any other good fact checker sites?

Like I said, Snopes is great for debunking certain items & has a rock solid reputation as such, but even if someone sent me Snopes tiered analysis of all of Harry Reid's shady business dealings I would be suspect of it. Not because I don't think Reid is a despicable, shady mofo - it's that Snopes doesn't have that sort of a reputation for going deep on such issues.

A fact checking site can be 100% accurate but if it doesn't apply the fact checking evenly, that's bias. Politifact is a site that gets referenced quite a bit but there's no doubt it leans left. If I operated a site that dealt with the biggest lies of Hillary & highlighted her worst ones & then fact checked stuff like, "Is Trump's hair real", or if I did write about a lie of Trump but then spent paragraph upon paragraph trying to offer an explanation far greater than anything Trump has, it would be disingenuous not to admit to the bias.

 

[GK4Herd]

Like I said, Snopes is great for debunking certain items & has a rock solid reputation as such, but even if someone sent me Snopes tiered analysis of all of Harry Reid's shady business dealings I would be suspect of it. Not because I don't think Reid is a despicable, shady mofo - it's that Snopes doesn't have that sort of a reputation for going deep on such issues.

A fact checking site can be 100% accurate but if it doesn't apply the fact checking evenly, that's bias. Politifact is a site that gets referenced quite a bit but there's no doubt it leans left. If I operated a site that dealt with the biggest lies of Hillary & highlighted her worst ones & then fact checked stuff like, "Is Trump's hair real", or if I did write about a lie of Trump but then spent paragraph upon paragraph trying to offer an explanation far greater than anything Trump has, it would be disingenuous not to admit to the bias.

I can agree with that. I guess it's what you use the site for. I think my problem is how this whole thread was presented. A fact checker for Snopes has been found to have a political leaning. Fine. I don't like that and it disappoints me. But then all the sudden Snopes is presented as a site that has zero value and the revelation is used to incite the same old mind numbing rivalries between certain posters that appear in every...single...thread. Lol.

 

[extragreen]

" I'm very disappointed with the latest revelation that it is politically and ideologically tainted."

Where does this come from?

 

[extragreen]

Like I said, Snopes is great for checking certain things & has a reputation as such. But not for substantive issues. Sorry you're new to the internet. And the AP also has a reputation. The phrase you can't spell crap with AP is hardly new. Given the reputation Senators have, how can anyone not trust them?

"Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction"

"In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories"

"And though Snopes arguably deserves the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible"

"major news organizations such as the Associated Press and MSNBC cite Snopes as a definitive source for determining accuracy in suspicious stories"

"U.S. senator recently dismissed an issue as significant as determining the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president based on the word of Snopes."

Everyone of the above quotes comes from the same far right source that the OP in this thread cited.

 

[GK4Herd]

" I'm very disappointed with the latest revelation that it is politically and ideologically tainted."

Where does this come from?

From the conservative article posted above. Lol.

Look...Kim Lacapria is an admitted left leaning writer with a history of ideological writing. She wrote for the Inquistr before going to Snopes. She has an easily found history that displays political bias. It doesn't take a ton of research (I took the time to do it) to understand that if Snopes is going to delve into political fact checking that it needs to staff themselves with people other than those who are ideologically tainted. That's just common sense if you want the truth about stuff. If not, the site only serves as a means to sate our confirmation bias.

 

[GK4Herd]

"Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction"

"In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories"

"And though Snopes arguably deserves the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible"

"major news organizations such as the Associated Press and MSNBC cite Snopes as a definitive source for determining accuracy in suspicious stories"

"U.S. senator recently dismissed an issue as significant as determining the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president based on the word of Snopes."

Everyone of the above quotes comes from the same far right source that the OP in this thread cited.

You're not separating the issues. You're doing what every single thread does on Pullman. You're lumping things as either all good (it supports my world view) or all bad (it doesn't support it). Snopes is an excellent and well researched fact checker for hoaxes, quotes, Internet sensationalism, etc. But in recent years Snopes had delved into political fact checking and one of the main writers is ideologically left leaning. That just goes against the nature and purpose of the site.

 

[extragreen]

From the conservative article posted above. Lol.

Look...Kim Lacapria is an admitted left leaning writer with a history of ideological writing. She wrote for the Inquistr before going to Snopes. She has an easily found history that displays political bias. It doesn't take a ton of research (I took the time to do it) to understand that if Snopes is going to delve into political fact checking that it needs to staff themselves with people other than those who are ideologically tainted. That's just common sense if you want the truth about stuff. If not, the site only serves as a means to sate our confirmation bias.

Was there anything in Lacapria's article that was false? Facts don't have a bias. If I tell you the grass in my yard is green, it doesn't matter if I lean communist or fascist.

 

[extragreen]

You're not separating the issues. You're doing what every single thread does on Pullman. You're lumping things as either all good (it supports my world view) or all bad (it doesn't support it). Snopes is an excellent and well researched fact checker for hoaxes, quotes, Internet sensationalism, etc. But in recent years Snopes had delved into political fact checking and one of the main writers is ideologically left leaning. That just goes against the nature and purpose of the site.

Not separating issues. Snopes is considered by a host of people on both sides of the aisle as dependable and has a reputation as solid. Snopes gets attacked from the left often for being too conservative and vice versa. That would seem to me to be a pretty good indication of it's neutrality.

 

[GK4Herd]

Not separating issues. Snopes is considered by a host of people on both sides of the aisle as dependable and has a reputation as solid. Snopes gets attacked from the left often for being too conservative and vice versa. That would seem to me to be a pretty good indication of it's neutrality.

If you read my posts you'll know that I defended Snopes. I use the site from time to time and will continue. I haven't read anything about Snopes being attacked by the left for being too conservative. That's interesting. Can you post a link to that?

 

[extragreen]

If you read my posts you'll know that I defended Snopes. I use the site from time to time and will continue. I haven't read anything about Snopes being attacked by the left for being too conservative. That's interesting. Can you post a link to that?

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp

 

[GK4Herd]

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp

That's interesting. I suppose that the way people judge the facts is if it validates their held beliefs or not. I'm going to use the site for basic fact checking but I'll use my judgement on political stuff.

 

[extragreen]

That's interesting. I suppose that the way people judge the facts is if it validates their held beliefs or not. I'm going to use the site for basic fact checking but I'll use my judgement on political stuff.

Snopes suggests that you do that very thing, and is the reason they include references for their fact checking. They don't claim to be infallible. Neither do I. But in a world of misinformation, they're one of the best I've found for clarity.

 

[GeauxHerd]

So, you're more knowledgeable about snopes than the AP, a U S senator, and other fact checking sites. Got it.

Point Blank, Yes. He is.

 

[extragreen]

Point Blank, Yes. He is.

Of course he is. Don't know why I asked.

 

[wisemaniac]

...in a world of misinformation, they're one of the best I've found for clarity.

Occasionally I'll take you off of ignore to see what kind of comedy gold you come up with - and you deliver once more. You embracing clarity, right.

 

[extragreen]

Occasionally I'll take you off of ignore to see what kind of comedy gold you come up with - and you deliver once more. You embracing clarity, right.

You're confusing clarity with hilarity. Do us both a favor and keep me on ignore. I won't miss anything.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

You embracing clarity, right.

He's been trying to go clear for years.

 

[extragreen]

He's been trying to go clear for years.

Youve been successfully trying to go stupid.

 

[wisemaniac]

He's been trying to go clear for years.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Youve been successfully trying to go stupid.

Did I say anything untrue in that post? Moron.

 

[extragreen]

"Youve been successfully trying to go stupid."

I didn't say anything untrue in that one. Moron.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

So you really are not trying to go clear? This whole Scientology thing has been a ruse? Sumbitch....

 

[extragreen]

So you really are not trying to go clear? This whole Scientology thing has been a ruse? Sumbitch....

Theres no sense in you trying for more stupid when you've already accomplished it.

 

[ohio herd]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...act-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/