Snopes Got Snoped

[longknife]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

 

[Coyote]

Oops....Snopes got Snoped - Fact Check

Snopes.com - FactCheck.org

 

[Pogo]

Oops....Snopes got Snoped - Fact Check

Snopes.com - FactCheck.org

Oops --- Thread "Snopes Got Snoped" got Snoped.

 

[turzovka]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

I completely dismiss Snopes when it comes their defense of accusations against high officials on the left. It's a pattern where they attack or disprove certain claims, but then totally avoid mentioning the more troublesome facts. In a word, they are a cover up for anything left. And they are very selective on what topics they cover. They don't dare touch the most noteworthy Catholic miracles of course. Go after a more obvious religious fraud instead. And they scrub data, as in some earlier statements they made on Obama's birth history. Anyway, all this is well known by now. You cannot trust most data sources once their agendas become exposed over a pattern. Even google, facebook, twitter, wikipedia have left leaning agendas.

 

[BULLDOG]

You got a credible source for that story?

 

[PurpleOwl]

Snopes is owned by the lizard people of nibiru to control our minds and trick us so they can steal all of our cobalt, they need it to breathe on their planet.

 

[BULLDOG]

Snopes is owned by the lizard people of nibiru to control our minds and trick us so they can steal all of our cobalt, they need it to breathe on their planet.

Sad that I don't know if you are joking, or actually believe what you post.

 

[Pogo]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

I completely dismiss Snopes when it comes their defense of accusations against high officials on the left. It's a pattern where they attack or disprove certain claims, but then totally avoid mentioning the more troublesome facts. In a word, they are a cover up for anything left. And they are very selective on what topics they cover. They don't dare touch the most noteworthy Catholic miracles of course. Go after a more obvious religious fraud instead. And they scrub data, as in some earlier statements they made on Obama's birth history. Anyway, all this is well known by now. You cannot trust most data sources once their agendas become exposed over a pattern. Even google, facebook, twitter, wikipedia have left leaning agendas.

"Reality is conspiring against me! Waaaaaa!

"Catholic miracles" Dafuck are you even babbling about?

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure why the right is so dead against Snopes. They try to claim it's biased because it's owned by (insert democrats/Soros/etc)....it's not. It's a good source. It's non-partisan. It becomes partisan when it doesn't agree with you.

 

[BULLDOG]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

I completely dismiss Snopes when it comes their defense of accusations against high officials on the left. It's a pattern where they attack or disprove certain claims, but then totally avoid mentioning the more troublesome facts. In a word, they are a cover up for anything left. And they are very selective on what topics they cover. They don't dare touch the most noteworthy Catholic miracles of course. Go after a more obvious religious fraud instead. And they scrub data, as in some earlier statements they made on Obama's birth history. Anyway, all this is well known by now. You cannot trust most data sources once their agendas become exposed over a pattern. Even google, facebook, twitter, wikipedia have left leaning agendas.

I guess you have to tell yourself that so you don't have to admit you fell for so many sleazy lies

 

[turzovka]

"Reality is conspiring against me! Waaaaaa!

"Catholic miracles" Dafuck are you even babbling about?

It is not what I am babbling about.
It is about who am I now talking to.

"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."

 

[turzovka]

I guess you have to tell yourself that so you don't have to admit you fell for so many sleazy lies

Yeah, I guess. But I like this latest one where Snopes, the champion of justice and knowledge, helps clear up the Monica Petersen death in Haiti which just occurred in November after the election.

As it were the young vibrant brave Monica Peterson was in Haiti investigating the highly suspicious Clinton Foundation and possible human trafficking connection. And before you can said Vince Foster, oh my, the woman is dead! No one is sure how she died but some govt insiders are pretty sure it was "suicide." And lefties sit there and don't bat an eye. "Oh, another clinton murder charge? -- sigh" You do not care because you demand more "evidence" or CNN or ABC first report it. No, actually, you do not want to know any evidence, you have your world in order and are not interested in having it ruffled in any way.
Monica Petersen Killed for Investigating Clinton-Related Sex Trafficking in Haiti?

But Snopes smells a real problem for the clintons, etc. so they know their mission, smear the story. And when one reads their lengthy report which ignores some very disturbing truths -- Snopes issues their authoritative findings > > "Unproven!" Oh, thanks. You mean much ado about nothing again? Just some conspiracy nuts? After all, people die all the time. So IOW "unproven" means none of us need worry about any of this? Ok, thanks again Snoops.

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess you have to tell yourself that so you don't have to admit you fell for so many sleazy lies

Yeah, I guess. But I like this latest one where Snopes, the champion of justice and knowledge, helps clear up the Monica Petersen death in Haiti which just occurred in November after the election.

As it were the young vibrant brave Monica Peterson was in Haiti investigating the highly suspicious Clinton Foundation and possible human trafficking connection. And before you can said Vince Foster, oh my, the woman is dead! No one is sure how she died but some govt insiders are pretty sure it was "suicide." And lefties sit there and don't bat an eye. "Oh, another clinton murder charge? -- sigh" You do not care because you demand more "evidence" or CNN or ABC first report it. No, actually, you do not want to know any evidence, you have your world in order and are not interested in having it ruffled in any way.
Monica Petersen Killed for Investigating Clinton-Related Sex Trafficking in Haiti?

But Snopes smells a real problem for the clintons, etc. so they know their mission, smear the story. And when one reads their lengthy report which ignores some very disturbing truths -- Snopes issues their authoritative findings > > "Unproven!" Oh, thanks. You mean much ado about nothing again? Just some conspiracy nuts? After all, people die all the time. So IOW "unproven" means none of us need worry about any of this? Ok, thanks again Snoops.

So you think Clinton kills people. What more proof is needed to show how crazy you are?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's all about motivated reasoning. The rightwing animosity towards snopes is a reaction towards being proven wrong - an example of mitigating cognitive dissonance.

It's easier to get mad at snopes for proving you wrong than accept that you've been lied to, and believed it.

 

[OnePercenter]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

WOW! A real life US Army Soviet hack!

 

[longknife]

Snopes Exclusively Hires Leftists



But they're an unbiased fact-checking group – right? Well, perhaps not. If that's the case, how will our resident Leftists cover up when they attack rightist stories? And, it's only recently that we've learned just who's behind the site.



Almost all of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes did not respond to a list of questions from TheDC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.



Read more: Facebook Fact-Checker Snopes Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively

 

[miketx]

Oops....Snopes got Snoped - Fact Check

Snopes.com - FactCheck.org

Right. They deny it. Must be true then, huh? MY God liberals are stupid.

 

[BULLDOG]

Snopes Exclusively Hires Leftists



But they're an unbiased fact-checking group – right? Well, perhaps not. If that's the case, how will our resident Leftists cover up when they attack rightist stories? And, it's only recently that we've learned just who's behind the site.



Almost all of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes did not respond to a list of questions from TheDC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.



Read more: Facebook Fact-Checker Snopes Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively

The Daily Caller? That's Tucker Carlson's bunch. They were the ones who hired the prostitutes to falsely claim Bob Menendez was their customer 5 days before his election, and also had several of their top reporters quit because they weren't allowed to run any stories critical of Fox. Is that where you're getting your fake news from now?

 

[Syriusly]

How many times does the Leftist rise up and scream about how an article is clearly false just because Snopes.com says so? They take it for the Gospel Truth. Well, this article seems to remove the sheet of secrecy from the site – and it doesn't appear quite so authoritative is they would have us believe.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

Full piece @ Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped

The funny thing about Conservatives attacks on Snopes- is that they always attack Snopes credibility- not the accuracy of the story that the Conservatives are whining about.

Snopes provides links that anyone can use to check out the answer themselves. I use Snopes, Factcheck.org and Politifact to check the accuracy of stories- and what I find generally is that those sources expose the usual right wing nut job stories that Longknife tends to post without bothering to check on himself.

If you know of any better fact checking websites- share them. But until you do- I will use Snopes and Factcheck and Politifact to check the stupid crap being spread on the internet as truth.

 

[Syriusly]

Snopes Exclusively Hires Leftists



But they're an unbiased fact-checking group – right? Well, perhaps not. If that's the case, how will our resident Leftists cover up when they attack rightist stories? And, it's only recently that we've learned just who's behind the site.



Almost all of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes did not respond to a list of questions from TheDC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.



Read more: Facebook Fact-Checker Snopes Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively

What i find amusing about Longknife's angst about Snopes is that Longknife never makes any effort to check the accuracy of the wildass crap he posts.

No wonder he despises Snopes- when so often Snopes is only seconds away from showing that once again Longknife has posted more disproven right wing crap.