Examples of Snopes' Extreme Political Bias

[dudmuck]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I'll bet whenever any woman is raped, you'll ask, "but what was she wearing when he 'raped' her?"

I'm sure Zip Tie Guy just wanted to have a pleasant chat with her if he found her walking through the halls. Maybe they just set up the gallows and chanted about murdering the VP to make a point?

 

[alang1216]

Even if you give Occasional-Smolett the benefit of doubt, she was terrified. She was plainly lying when she said she could hear people going door to door yelling "where is she". No one was banging on her door. That was a lie. She lies like a democrat.

How do you know it wasn't the cops looking to see who was safe?

According to this, it was the cops, and she was terrified of them...

AOC hits back at Republicans claiming she was never in the Capitol

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spent Wednesday sparring with alt right provocateur Jack Posobiec, after he claimed she was lying about her traumatic experiences on January 6 during the Capitol riot.

www.dailymail.co.uk

She may have been smart to be terrified, there were reports that some of the cops were more than just sympathetic to the rioters.

 

[justinacolmena]

they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false

That is obviously the case on snopes as well as other "fact-checking" websites such as politifact and factcheck.org.

Republicans will present evidence, e.g. Here Is The Evidence but on the other hand Democrats deny that there is any evidence at all, and they insist on presenting their political opinions in accordance with the Democrat Party line as uncontestable "fact." They tell us how to think. They do not present evidence or allow us to make our own decisions on the evidence in front of us.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I'll bet whenever any woman is raped, you'll ask, "but what was she wearing when he 'raped' her?"

I'm sure Zip Tie Guy just wanted to have a pleasant chat with her if he found her walking through the halls. Maybe they just set up the gallows and chanted about murdering the VP to make a point?

It's a decent point, thank you. I doubt that she saw that at that time, however. I don't think those pictures came out live.

And no. Rape is absolutely terrible and horrific, but I would not automatically believe anything without facts. Unfortunatley, sometimes, large sums of money are involved in rape allegations, and many allegations have been false. It's simply a fact, even though the majority of rape allegations are probably true. Not sure why you had to go there. I don't blame AOC for being scared but they fact check statements about her not being in the Capitol and delve into the narrative of Conservatives being conspiracy theorists and disinformation machines.

If you can't see the bias, I think you must be blind. If it were the other way around, I would still see the bias.

Here is an example of Right-Wing news that I am skeptical of. I suspect the real deal is that the White House would appreciate knowing the subject matter of questions, so they can be prepared to answer them. Alternatively, it might be true. I don't know, but I wouldn't trust Snopes' conclusions, even though I might review some of their sources.

WH Slammed For Seeking Briefing Questions in Advance

President Joe Biden's communications team has at times probed reporters to see what questions they plan on asking White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, prompting concerns among the press corps, three sources with...

www.newsmax.com

 

[j-mac]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Which doesn't matter. This isn't about whether or not AOC actually feared for her life that day, it is about how Snopes, and other left of center supposed "fact checking" outlets skew their analysis of things to benefit Democrats.

And as such are NOT true fact checkers, but instead just more noise from a one sided debate, which really then, makes it no debate at all...

I have seen some media skew the narrative. I believe it was Newsweek that did that big time. Snopes is not doing that here.

Oh but they are, it was even pointed out in bold in the OP....

It's 100% irrelevant she wasn't in the area the rioters were at. They were told to get out that a mob had broke in and her office is accessible through the Capitol. She hears someone out in the hall looking for her (them) and she has no idea who they are.

What matters in this thread is how Snopes skewed the write up on it....If you want to debate AOC's instagram proclaimations, then start a thread on that...

They are saying her statements are true. They are.

Ok, you obviously didn't read the OP, or comprehend the topic....AOC was an example, not the topic....

Then they used a very poor example.

If one wants to argue that Snopes is biased, argue it but you have to use an example that shows that.

So, when snopes talks of a "right wing disinformation machine" they're being fair and unbiased? I don't think so.

 

[Faun]

Here is another example, coming from the beginning of the Trump Admin.

Here is their page on a comparison of the Obama and Trump inauguration crowds....

Was Obama's Inauguration Crowd Larger Than Trump's?

While no official crowd count has yet been released for Trump's inauguration, Obama's inauguration in 2009 set a record for attendance.

www.snopes.com

It includes this well-known blurry picture comparison (a meme, no less), and you can't even tell if it is a reliable comparison, as you can't even tell if President Trump is on stage yet...

Here are better pictures....

Obama crowd, with Obama on stage:

Trump crowd, with Trump on stage:

I had contacted Snopes a few times to point out the problems with their fact check, including links to these pictures. They never replied nor updated their narrative, despite it being a hot topic in the press for quite a while.

Snopes is for dopes.

Oh, for fuck's sake. How many times do rightarded delusions need to be debunked?? And yes, Snopes got that one right as Obama's crowd...

... was way bigger than Trumps. Not even close...

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think I occupy far too much space in your mind.

You repeat this line so often that you should just make it your sig-line.

I think that you're so full of your own self-importance that you actually believe that you occupy space in people's minds. And I think you actively go out of your way to set the stage in your own shallow mind to continue the laughable charade. It's creepy, really. It gives me the heebie jeebies.

It seems like some stupid, sadistic game that you play with yourself to entertain yourself alone and very likely why the majority of the low-value threads that you start appear thoroughly premised upon stimulating and reinforcing the foolish notion that people care what you think just so you can flatter yourself by pretending in your own mind that everything is about you, oh holy Mac.

Mac, you're a low-value poster. Always have been. You're about as deep as a mud puddle. Ultimately, you're unimportant. Face it, Mac, you're a boring schmuck. And you're always gonna be a boring schmuck so long as you're preoccupied with counting your name rather than leaving your mark on the world in a positive way.

I mean, if you wanna play some stupid game with yourself to reinforce your own artificial sense of self-value or your longing for self-worth on a message board or whatever, by all means go ahead. It's humorous, at the very least. Creepy at worst.

But rest assured, you're no pirate! Not in the slightest.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. To the topical, I've no idea why people read smut like the likes of Snope, other than simply preferring to be led in what to think and what to say.

The most dangerous man in the world is the man who thinks for himself. And they know it. That's why they want to keep the smut front and center. They don't want people thinking for themselves. It's dangerous to their agendas.

Turn that spew off, it's garbage. Or close the tab or whatever. You'll sleep better.

 

[Faun]

Anyway. To the topical, I've no idea why people read smut like the likes of Snope, other than siply prefering to be led in what to think and what to say.

The most dangerous man in the world is the man who thinks for himself. And they know it. That's why they want to keep the smut front and center.

Turn that spew off, it's garbage. Or close the tab or whatever.

I'm still not seeing where Snopes got that wrong.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm still not seeing where Snopes got that wrong.

No idea, I didn't even read it. I only read the thread title. I've no interest in designating Snopes as the center of the terms of controversy in any issue. That's what they want. They peddle low-value political smut. Entities like that are part of the virus that's killing critical thought and meaningful dialogue in the modern world.

 

[B. Kidd]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

 

[Faun]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

 

[B. Kidd]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

 

[Faun]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

LOL

And Snopes was still right. Whine on.

 

[B. Kidd]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

LOL

And Snopes was still right. Whine on.

Wrong lost cause. You can't even F'in think straight!

 

[Faun]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

LOL

And Snopes was still right. Whine on.

Wrong lost cause. You can't even F'in think straight!

LOL

And Snopes is still right. Is this really the best you can do?

 

[B. Kidd]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

LOL

And Snopes was still right. Whine on.

Wrong lost cause. You can't even F'in think straight!

LOL

And Snopes is still right. Is this really the best you can do?

Round 1 - KO! I win! Maggot.

 

[Faun]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

I caught this. Snope's has no cred. They're probably frontrunners for Bi-Dung's Reality Czarism, Ministry of Truth, or whatever the hell these demented A-holes call it!

Yet the two Snopes articles mentioned in this thread were both correct.

Leave it to a lefty like you that can hold two incompatible ideas at the same time and believe it makes sense! You put the 'I' in the word idiot!

LOL

And Snopes was still right. Whine on.

Wrong lost cause. You can't even F'in think straight!

LOL

And Snopes is still right. Is this really the best you can do?

Round 1 - KO! I win! Maggot.

LOL

There's no victory as sweet as a self-declared victory. Oh, and in a thread about examples of Snopes' extreme political bias, the two Snopes articles referenced were both spot on by Snopes. AOC wasn't in the Capitol and was in fear for her life ... and Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's.

 

[pknopp]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Which doesn't matter. This isn't about whether or not AOC actually feared for her life that day, it is about how Snopes, and other left of center supposed "fact checking" outlets skew their analysis of things to benefit Democrats.

And as such are NOT true fact checkers, but instead just more noise from a one sided debate, which really then, makes it no debate at all...

I have seen some media skew the narrative. I believe it was Newsweek that did that big time. Snopes is not doing that here.

Oh but they are, it was even pointed out in bold in the OP....

It's 100% irrelevant she wasn't in the area the rioters were at. They were told to get out that a mob had broke in and her office is accessible through the Capitol. She hears someone out in the hall looking for her (them) and she has no idea who they are.

What matters in this thread is how Snopes skewed the write up on it....If you want to debate AOC's instagram proclaimations, then start a thread on that...

They are saying her statements are true. They are.

Ok, you obviously didn't read the OP, or comprehend the topic....AOC was an example, not the topic....

Then they used a very poor example.

If one wants to argue that Snopes is biased, argue it but you have to use an example that shows that.

So, when snopes talks of a "right wing disinformation machine" they're being fair and unbiased? I don't think so.

How would you describe completely misrepresenting a quote?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Here is another example, coming from the beginning of the Trump Admin.

Here is their page on a comparison of the Obama and Trump inauguration crowds....

Was Obama's Inauguration Crowd Larger Than Trump's?

While no official crowd count has yet been released for Trump's inauguration, Obama's inauguration in 2009 set a record for attendance.

www.snopes.com

It includes this well-known blurry picture comparison (a meme, no less), and you can't even tell if it is a reliable comparison, as you can't even tell if President Trump is on stage yet...

Here are better pictures....

Obama crowd, with Obama on stage:

Trump crowd, with Trump on stage:

I had contacted Snopes a few times to point out the problems with their fact check, including links to these pictures. They never replied nor updated their narrative, despite it being a hot topic in the press for quite a while.

Snopes is for dopes.

Oh, for fuck's sake. How many times do rightarded delusions need to be debunked?? And yes, Snopes got that one right as Obama's crowd...

... was way bigger than Trumps. Not even close...

You post complete lies. You posted a picture from when people were still arriving, before Trump even started speaking...

Here. Enjoy. You can rotate and then zoom in, and see how you have been brainwashed....

Your picture is a complete falsehood. You should be ashamed of yourself...

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

Explore a massive photo taken during Donald Trump's inauguration speech.

www.cnn.com

See this??? Your post is Fake News that you fell for.