I see that today's Hot In The Gulch has two posts about Dopes co-founded Snopes. Me dino got to write Dopes co-founded Snopes as second time. Bwahaha! No, that would be a third time, uh, with two of 'em up there.
"Facebook did not return calls for comment." Funniest line Ive read all day. I expect the next headline from this site will be " Mikkelsons dick falls off, Soros and Mikkelsons wife are equally suspected."
I do not care about the guys personal life. What he does with his time is his business. However, taking Soros money, considering Soros' past actions, does call into question the character of Snopes. People don't check Snopes for information (news content), they check it to validate something they heard. That degree of influence and direction in that hands of someone like Soros in any way can do a lot of damage.
Agreed its just a tool. The responsibility for accuracy and validity still rests witht he individual. The trouble is too many use snopes and factcheck as validation and stop there. But then there's so much crap being peddled as news/truth and suck a lack of objectivity in the media its hard to find solid ground to build a foundation.
"But then there's so much crap being peddled as news/truth and SUCH a lack of objectivity in the media its hard to find solid ground to build a foundation."
Honestly, I am in favor of all of these activities (even as he's doing them). I'd never leave my own wife to do it. I have an issue with that (but, ironically, I don't know all the facts. Perhaps his wife decided that the physical aspects of their relationship didn't matter anymore...).
I have found factual errors in snopes. They often use the method that the left is really the best at - linguistics. More power to them....
Me dino got to write Dopes co-founded Snopes as second time.
Bwahaha!
No, that would be a third time, uh, with two of 'em up there.
Media Matters is another one.
8P
Have you found any (how many?) factual errors in Snopes?
I do not care about the guys personal life. What he does with his time is his business. However, taking Soros money, considering Soros' past actions, does call into question the character of Snopes. People don't check Snopes for information (news content), they check it to validate something they heard. That degree of influence and direction in that hands of someone like Soros in any way can do a lot of damage.
A simple Google search of my own, using the words "factual errors on snopes" produced 63,000 results.
In just the first few pages I found the following in support of their bias. There were of course duplicates and many hits among the first few pages of results/articles in support of snopes and still others not material.
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.co...
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/b...
http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fac...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/...
http://sourceplanet.net/politics/snop...
https://www.superstation95.com/index....
http://bluelivesmatter.blue/debunking-snopes-philando-castile-article/
https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/1...
http://patterico.com/2016/03/27/snope...
http://iotwreport.com/dumb-bint-dim-l...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTJ3Q...
https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/...
http://truthfeed.com/liberal-fact-che...
http://www.thehonestmedia.com/2016/08...
http://thetenoclockscholar.blogspot.c...
https://stream.org/snopes-misrepresen...
http://truthaboutpetfood.com/snopes-c...
http://hubpages.com/politics/Is-Snope...
http://conservativefiringline.com/sno...
http://www.commonsenseisback.com/arti...
Snopes is a tool. It is not the last word. FactCheck.org stands by Snopes, but who is checking the fact checkers... FactCheck.org has also been wrong. The thing is, their percentage may look good, but it is substance not quantity that matters. The bulk of their work is probably accurate, but they are not perfect and there is legitimate criticism. The criticism is that it is not always what they report, but what they do not report and how they report it. According to several sources they base their conclusions, on nothing more than their own google searches, giving what often appears to be a bias towards sites that support their own predilections, or they accept without question, the explanation from the party/agency in question as factual... End of inquiry. Fact Checked!??? You decide.
Regards,
O.A.
O.A. check your messages :)
I have found no new messages. :(
Would you like to start a new PM?
Happy Holidays,
O.A.
My typos can't really confuse things..sorry.
These with stolen money is another.
Thieves are a type.
Thieves who claim the moral high ground are another type.
Factual errors in Snopes are not high except on the usual political topics when the bias produces sneering instead of investigation.
Well if you suggest this news changes nothing, I agree.
But they deserve little cred on any topic that is politically linked.
I have found factual errors in snopes. They often use the method that the left is really the best at - linguistics. More power to them....
Sounds like some not nice behavior, but don't know if this completely illegitimizes Snopes.