Is Snopes a Left-Wing Mouthpiece?
- Thread starter Tom Sweetnam
- Start date
- Status
Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,529
- 1,170
Here is more:
Is Snopes.com infallible
Bias in myth-busting?
Some critics argue that embedded in the explanations of Snopes conclusions is a political or social bias, citing the great American essayist E.B. White, who wrote, “I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that does not have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular.”
Snopes even became the subject of an Internet myth itself, a widely distributed e-mail claiming it was owned by “a flaming liberal in the tank for Obama” and that TruthOrFiction.com was a less biased myth-busting website.
In response, the Mikkelsons claim to be as neutral as possible and reject the political activist label.
“We have no sponsors, investors, or partners, nor do we have any affiliation or relationship (financial or otherwise) with any political party, religious group, business organization, or any other group or agency,” states the Snopes FAQ page. “We pay all the costs of producing and operating this website ourselves and derive our income from the advertising it provides.”
For its part, the TruthOrFiction website mentioned in some of the critical e-mails even produced a piece on the rumor that Snopes “is a secret tool of the Democratic Party to Promote Barack Obama,” labeling the accusation as “fiction.”
WND asked David Mikkelson what safeguards might be in place to prevent bias from creeping into its articles.
“Our safeguard is the millions of readers (including major news organizations, government agencies, universities, and authors) who value our site’s long-established reputation for fairness, accuracy, and reliability,” Mikkelson responded. “We would not maintain such a reputation if we did not consistently apply objective standards in our reporting.”
If you believe that he may have a bridge to sell you too.
Is Snopes.com infallible
Bias in myth-busting?
Some critics argue that embedded in the explanations of Snopes conclusions is a political or social bias, citing the great American essayist E.B. White, who wrote, “I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that does not have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular.”
Snopes even became the subject of an Internet myth itself, a widely distributed e-mail claiming it was owned by “a flaming liberal in the tank for Obama” and that TruthOrFiction.com was a less biased myth-busting website.
In response, the Mikkelsons claim to be as neutral as possible and reject the political activist label.
“We have no sponsors, investors, or partners, nor do we have any affiliation or relationship (financial or otherwise) with any political party, religious group, business organization, or any other group or agency,” states the Snopes FAQ page. “We pay all the costs of producing and operating this website ourselves and derive our income from the advertising it provides.”
For its part, the TruthOrFiction website mentioned in some of the critical e-mails even produced a piece on the rumor that Snopes “is a secret tool of the Democratic Party to Promote Barack Obama,” labeling the accusation as “fiction.”
WND asked David Mikkelson what safeguards might be in place to prevent bias from creeping into its articles.
“Our safeguard is the millions of readers (including major news organizations, government agencies, universities, and authors) who value our site’s long-established reputation for fairness, accuracy, and reliability,” Mikkelson responded. “We would not maintain such a reputation if we did not consistently apply objective standards in our reporting.”
If you believe that he may have a bridge to sell you too.
Last edited:
Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,529
- 1,170
and this:
Is Snopes.com infallible
Other critics question the process of how the Mikkelsons choose sources they consider definitive in determining truth.
Mikkelson told WND Snopes considers several factors in determining if a source is trustworthy, including the source’s history of reliability, corroboration of other sources, tangible evidence and independent verification of the source’s information.
The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.
“We don’t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site’s name indicates that it contains reference pages,” states [URL='http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp']the Snopes FAQ page. “The research materials we’ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed … so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”
When Farah wrote about Snopes in his “Beware the Internet!” column, his criticism keyed in on the website’s choice of sources.
Snopes was investigating claims that the Environmental Protection Agency was covering over safety concerns with compact fluorescent light bulbs. In determining the concerns a myth, however, Snopes cited as evidence the EPA.
“Notice the sources Snopes relies upon to conclude beyond any doubt CFLs don’t pose a serious health threat to anyone,” Farah writes, “the same government agency pushing CFLs. Where I come from (nearly 30 years of solid journalism experience), this is not considered good reporting. This is not considered the best way to seek truth and enlightenment or even objective facts.”
In the case of reports and dozens of lawsuits arguing that Barack Obama may not actually be constitutionally eligible to serve as president, Snopes has determined that Obama – despite his refusal to release his long-form birth certificate (which names the delivering hospital, doctor and other specifics) to the press or the courts – is a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as president.
The hoax-buster’s choice of sources in making the determination, however, has again led to criticism.
The Snopes conclusion refers to an image posted on another website, FactCheck, which in turn cites as documentation of Obama’s Hawaiian birth a “Certification of Live Birth” that the Obama campaign posted during 2008.
Critics, however, have pointed out that the “Certification of Live Birth” posted online is not, in fact, the same as a “Birth Certificate,” and COLBs have been issued by Hawaii
to parents whose children are not even born in the state.
California lawyer Orly Taitz, whose work is on her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation website, has written to state lawmakers across the nation, confronting the Snopes explanation directly:
“The State of Hawaii, statute 338, allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get a Hawaiian birth certificate. Mr. Obama has never presented any corroborating evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. His paternal grandmother in Kenya and the ambassador of Kenya made statements that he was born in Kenya,” she said.
“The image that Mr. Obama has posted on the Internet was not a valid birth certificate, but rather a limited value document, called Short Version Certification of Live Birth. The Certification of Live Birth does not name a hospital, name a doctor, have any signatures or a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department on the front of the document. This document is usually given to parties that don’t have a proper hospital birth certificate and it is given based on a statement of one relative only. Even the state of Hawaii doesn’t give full credit to these documents,” she continued.
_[/URL]__________________
Is Snopes.com infallible
Other critics question the process of how the Mikkelsons choose sources they consider definitive in determining truth.
Mikkelson told WND Snopes considers several factors in determining if a source is trustworthy, including the source’s history of reliability, corroboration of other sources, tangible evidence and independent verification of the source’s information.
The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.
“We don’t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site’s name indicates that it contains reference pages,” states [URL='http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp']the Snopes FAQ page. “The research materials we’ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed … so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”
When Farah wrote about Snopes in his “Beware the Internet!” column, his criticism keyed in on the website’s choice of sources.
Snopes was investigating claims that the Environmental Protection Agency was covering over safety concerns with compact fluorescent light bulbs. In determining the concerns a myth, however, Snopes cited as evidence the EPA.
“Notice the sources Snopes relies upon to conclude beyond any doubt CFLs don’t pose a serious health threat to anyone,” Farah writes, “the same government agency pushing CFLs. Where I come from (nearly 30 years of solid journalism experience), this is not considered good reporting. This is not considered the best way to seek truth and enlightenment or even objective facts.”
In the case of reports and dozens of lawsuits arguing that Barack Obama may not actually be constitutionally eligible to serve as president, Snopes has determined that Obama – despite his refusal to release his long-form birth certificate (which names the delivering hospital, doctor and other specifics) to the press or the courts – is a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as president.
The hoax-buster’s choice of sources in making the determination, however, has again led to criticism.
The Snopes conclusion refers to an image posted on another website, FactCheck, which in turn cites as documentation of Obama’s Hawaiian birth a “Certification of Live Birth” that the Obama campaign posted during 2008.
Critics, however, have pointed out that the “Certification of Live Birth” posted online is not, in fact, the same as a “Birth Certificate,” and COLBs have been issued by Hawaii
to parents whose children are not even born in the state.
California lawyer Orly Taitz, whose work is on her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation website, has written to state lawmakers across the nation, confronting the Snopes explanation directly:
“The State of Hawaii, statute 338, allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get a Hawaiian birth certificate. Mr. Obama has never presented any corroborating evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. His paternal grandmother in Kenya and the ambassador of Kenya made statements that he was born in Kenya,” she said.
“The image that Mr. Obama has posted on the Internet was not a valid birth certificate, but rather a limited value document, called Short Version Certification of Live Birth. The Certification of Live Birth does not name a hospital, name a doctor, have any signatures or a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department on the front of the document. This document is usually given to parties that don’t have a proper hospital birth certificate and it is given based on a statement of one relative only. Even the state of Hawaii doesn’t give full credit to these documents,” she continued.
_[/URL]__________________
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,102
- 262,228
- 3,615
Anything that challenges rightwing claims with facts must be leftist
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,529
- 1,170
What in the world are you talking about and what has this got to do with a couple living in a doublewide trailer in California pretending to be the king and queen of fact checking? You must be kidding me. They don't even have a staff! For heaven's sake! They have been exposed how many times already? Wake up.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
In the case of Snopes, challenges right wing claims while never addressing left wing claims.
Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,529
- 1,170
They are both far left and I'm told their prior work was in the field of comedy. I find nothing funny about them. They are a disgrace.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,102
- 262,228
- 3,615
Book of Jeremiah
Platinum Member
- Nov 3, 2012
- 37,635
- 4,529
- 1,170
They are far left. This is what the left are known to do. That is why no one should ever, ever use Snopes for fact checking. imo.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #33
Snopes.com
Q: Is Snopes.com run by “very Democratic” proprietors? Did they lie to discredit a State Farm insurance agent who attacked Obama?
A: A chain e-mail that “exposed” Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.
FULL QUESTION
Can you verify?
Chain e-mail: “Snopes” Exposed
Posted on February 26, 2009 at 2:29am
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
For the past few years snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment,
claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> .
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know.
It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of snopes. com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> ever contacted anyone with State Farm Yet,snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.
Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com <http://www.snopes.com/> to get what they think to be the bottom line facts…’proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do.
FULL ANSWER
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
The Trouble with Bud
We’ll deal first with the most specific allegation, which is that the Mikkelsons fabricated an account about State Farm agent Bud Gregg.
At issue is a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, “A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined “Chicken Hawked.” The e-mail writer says that “they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.” But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.
In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word “pressured” as the e-mail claims. What she said was:
Snopes.com: A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns.
And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:
State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
Q: Is Snopes.com run by “very Democratic” proprietors? Did they lie to discredit a State Farm insurance agent who attacked Obama?
A: A chain e-mail that “exposed” Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.
FULL QUESTION
Can you verify?
Chain e-mail: “Snopes” Exposed
Posted on February 26, 2009 at 2:29am
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
For the past few years snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment,
claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> .
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know.
It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of snopes. com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> ever contacted anyone with State Farm Yet,snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.
Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com <http://www.snopes.com/> to get what they think to be the bottom line facts…’proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do.
FULL ANSWER
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
The Trouble with Bud
We’ll deal first with the most specific allegation, which is that the Mikkelsons fabricated an account about State Farm agent Bud Gregg.
At issue is a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, “A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined “Chicken Hawked.” The e-mail writer says that “they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.” But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.
In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word “pressured” as the e-mail claims. What she said was:
Snopes.com: A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns.
And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:
State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Then you've chosen a poor source - I only fact check that which directly interests me.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Yes, Snopes spends a great deal of bandwidth smearing Bush.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
They're even handed. What looks like bias is just the reflection of yours. What they put out aren't just opinions. They provide cites and facts to back up their positions.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
This video (not cross verified) says the massive volunteer para-military force called the Basij is fleeing Iran.- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Gender-affirming hormone treatment for teenagers halted by NHS- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
