What are we to makes of Snopes?

Snopes.com ^ | August 10, 2016 | Kim LaCapria

[MrChips]

"Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer . . ."

[BenLurkin]

Hard to take anyone seriously who cites Slate as a source.

[gunsequalfreedom]

Snopes is fake. Beyond any consideration as legit.

[NoLibZone]

SNOPES is a husband and wife team operating out of their kitchen.

Yeah they have the resources to be the arbiter of truth.

---

“One would think an entire think-tank university staff is behind Snopes.

Not so. It’s a couple — husband and wife.”

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/swank/090313

[1rudeboy]

Snopes is an excellent resource. Especially for debunking internet hoaxes, as noted above. As for political bias? One would think FReepers would be in tune to it, and any enterprising fellow, FReeper or not, would make a good killing debunking Snopes. So far, nothing. That’s an indication.

[Shimmer1]

Truthorfiction.com is better.

[ConservativeMind]

In my follow up review of my own comment (about Soros involvement with Snopes), I cannot validate that Soros does, in fact, fund that website.

It appears the references to Snopes and Soros come from Free Republic, alone.

If someone has other insight or proof, please provide it. I do not seek to provide wrong information in my posts.

[Cyclone59]

I thought I saw a claim that someone asked Snopes a question concerning a recent document. Snopes said it never happened, but this person had the document he had obtained through FOIA in his possession.

[mad_as_he$$]

Have you been in a coma? Just saying...

[Hulka]

. . .with cats. . .

[MD Expat in PA]

Snopes is an excellent resource. Especially for debunking internet hoaxes, as noted above. As for political bias? One would think FReepers would be in tune to it, and any enterprising fellow, FReeper or not, would make a good killing debunking Snopes. So far, nothing. That’s an indication.

I agree to some extent. Snopes is far from perfect and a liberal bias in some (well a lot) of their editorial content related to politics is evident, but they do a good job of debunking internet hoaxes and exposing fake news sites. I don’t use them as a sole or primary source but as a way of further researching a story that appears to be a hoax or greatly exaggerated or coming from dubious sources.

Here is a link to the Snopes article on Seth Rich.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/

To be honest, the conspiracy theories regarding Rich’s death never passed my smell meter even before I read the Snopes article. For one thing, contrary to what WhatDoesItMean.com / Sorcha Faal claimed, Rich was hardly a "top" DNC "official".

WhatDoesItMean.com / Sorcha Faal is so outrageous and wacky that even other wacky conspiracy leaning sites like Before It's News and Above Top Secret have disavowed him and questioned his credibility.

Just for some balance, here are some Snopes articles that have debunked rumors or false news stories related to Trump.

http://www.snopes.com/katrina-pierson-shoplifting-unemployment/

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-golden-toilet/

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/15/ivanka-trump-socializes-with-wendi-deng/

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-utah-tweet-fake/

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-crying-baby/

http://www.snopes.com/trump-did-not-donate-to-nambla/

If Snopes was totally in the bag for and only propagating liberal disinformation, why would they debunk false rumors and fake stories about Trump?

[Paleo Pete]

Snopes is OK for identifying Internet scams and chain emails that are total bunk. Nothing else. Anything political, forget it. Look somewhere else. I used Snopes and Hoaxkill for a long time to find out if email virus warnings and chain emails were hoaxes, Hoaxkill is apparently no longer in existence. I found out several years ago about Snopes’ left leaning tendency, I ran across a link to something I already knew, Snopes said the opposite, in favor of liberals of course. I did a bit of poking around, found several more. Liberal nonsense, avoid it for anything political.

So, if if pertains to a chain email or similar, probably ok but nothing else.

As far as virus warnings go, I’ve seen tons of chain emails saying Microsoft, AOL, Compuserve and others had issued virus alerts. Those are not anti virus companies. Only the anti virus companies like McCaffe and Norton will send email virus warnings, and then only if you subscribe to their email list. Best thing to do is look on their websites, they will usually confirm or debunk virus hoaxes.

For the chain emails, there are some obvious signs.

A long list of previous forward addresses.
Lots of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!
Generally if it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Lots of caps and making it sound like it’s the most important, dire, extremely critical thing you’ve ever heard...THE WORLD IS SURELY GONNA END NEXT WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...junk it.
Received from someone who has already forwarded 17 such junk emails. This one is probably also bunk.

I simply sent out an email to everyone on my list a long time ago telling them not to forward me every outrageous email they found, I don’t have time to read all the damn things. I later pared my long address list down to a dozen or so family and friends...Several people also stopped sending me anything at all after I sent CC: replies back to the entire list that an email they had sent all of us was garbage...I didn’t mind...

[MD Expat in PA]

Truthorfiction.com is better.

FWIW:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/snopes/

“Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.”

[Vigilanteman]

factcheck isn’t any better, just a little more sophisticated in their spin. Leftwing candidates use it extensively in their advertising here in PA.

[Vigilanteman]

I’d wager that the cat is the most intelligent member of their household.

[Bodega]

I once thought Snopes was reasonably accurate. Since I have become very involved in the gathering of information about our election in November and have gone to a great deal of trouble to get accurate information about Trump and Hilliary, I have found Snopes to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic party line. I no longer read Snopes. I continue to read foreign sources of news and now more conservative sources. I think I am “getting” it and with Hillary’s mental demise and the continued irrationality of the Democratic Party I find myself quite firmly entrenched in Trump’s party and will vote for him...certainly not fraudulent Hillary and her minions.

[Romans Nine]

I used to check Snopes about stories that favored conservatives/conservatism, stories that were easily verifiable, and nearly 100% of the time they flat out lied with their analysis.

I couldn’t believe how bad it was because for years everyone used them as a source for debunking stories.

The internet is infested with propaganda deposited there for nefarious purposes by progressive global communist elitists for the sole purpose of destroying the Republic.

[Liberty Valance]

LOL!

[Intolerant in NJ]

Wouldn’t be surprising - I don’t trust any of these self-proclaimed “impartial” fact-checkers - just like I start laughing whenever I hear somebody say “I’m a lifelong Republican but....”....