Skip to comments.Is Snopes Liberal?
Posted on 07/02/2008 2:46:57 PM PDT by spacejunkie01
I have been looking at Snopes to "confirm" certain things out there about Obama. For instance, quotes from his books, and Snopes comes across as very liberal, defending Obama and making excuses for what he's said. Most of the quotes, he did in fact say but Snopes likes to say it was taken out of context, etc. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
(Excerpt) Read more at snopes.com ...
Yes. Figured it out long time ago. Do the have a fixed set of authors or is it “free contributors”.
Yes, Snopes is owned by a liberal. Can’t remember his name but he’s for Obama.
TRUE: Snopes is in the tank for Obama.
I know a professor, O groupie, and fan of all things liberal-especially the ACLU.
Prof uses and has students use Snopes to check for the “truth” of their info.
I used to use them to debunk stuff about W. Haven’t been there lately. Should be easy enough to read the passages in his book and compare to Snopes. I would be interested to know if they are fudging it.
I would too but don’t have his books. Think we can read them free on line? The thing is, I don’t know if I can bring myself to read them :|
Snopes is a victim of his own BS and thinks he’s omniscient.
Yes, Snopes lied about Kerry on the Swift Boat stuff that I had seen confirmed by multiple sources (including raw documents).
It’s a fun site, but completely biased.
if you type in ‘dreams of my father’ in the search box, the first thing that comes up is the email that’s going around about quotes from his books that OBAMA made. Snopes makes excuses for what he says but doesn’t dispel what he says. Except for one quote (so they say) but its from an interview that obama gave, most likely with a liberal rag.
Look at their true and false page on John Kerry
Snopes is a Leftist site run by Leftist activists who use their False Authority to promote the Leftist Agenda.
In 2003, they took down the Clinton Body Count and linked the Bush Body Count in its place.
That same March they publicly stated their opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I refuse to give that site the Web hit they so desperately need.
Yes, in my OPINION, both Snopes and FactCheck.org lean left.
This isn’t to say that both sites don’t sometimes debunk a LEFTY lie. But they still lean left. It’s like seeing a non-leftist editorial in the NY Times or The Nation; on such occasions, one can point to these websites and say, “Why, even the left-leaning Snopes says this Howard Dean comment is baloney.”
Here’s a site I used to go to before I found Snopes. Have no idea what their leaning is, but could probably compare some controversial stories. Who knows they may be liberal also. http://www.truthorfiction.com/
It is a curiosity how those supposedly committed to getting to the truth can maintain such a level of delusion. Who can understand it?
Snopes is also lying about that dang ghost in “Three Men and a Baby.” Cardboard cut-out of Danson my ass. That thing is real!
ALTERNATIVES TO SNOPES
COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE
TRUTH OR FICTION
Yes, they certainly seems to be Obama supporters.
I clicked on urbanlegends. They’re as moon-batty as Snopes.
I’m glad you asked that here, and I was able to see fellow FReepers answers. I have read things on Snopes, and I have wondered if others too thought they leaned left. The problem is that Snopes is often cited as an all knowing source, but it is run by people (of course), and no one is perfect.
Though they try to disguise it, Snopes is liberal.
“Who watches the watchers?”
Snopes is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California who married after meeting on the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban. The couple also founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society, and were credited as the owners of the site until 2005. The site is organized according to topic and includes a messageboard where questionable stories and pictures may be posted.
Most of the write-ups are done but by Barbara "She's for Obama" Mikkelson.
snopes, google, who can you trust on the internet anymore?
Yes. Snopes is a Lib run flack site.
There are apolitical urban legends that they cribbed from Jan Brunvand’s wonderful books.
The rest is a bunch of partisan spin. They defend their biased spin which can flip a rumor from “true” to “false” to “a bit of both” by playing with the framing synopsis that they use to describe the rumor.
They sat out in hope that Hillary did NOT lie about her name for YEARS. Near the end the best they could do was to claim that maybe Hillary’s MOM had lied to her about the origin of her name (anything to no conclude that Hillary had lied). In the end, a campaign staffer came forward to say that it had all be a little white lie.
there is a keyword snopesbias, it has some more detailed examples.
Even Obama’s fight the smears scampaign will give an outright denial to rumors that do have an element of truth. For instance, Obama DID study the koran and HAS retained some of that knowledge (like the words to the Islamic call to prayer). The Madrassa bit was wrong but it is incorrect to say that he never had any muslim education.
Just as it is incorrect for the Obama staff to claim that Obama ALWAYS holds his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
Wikipedia is ALSO cited as an “all knowing” source.
And what know what that is worth.
The Liberal mantra is POLITICIZE EVERYTHING.
Not all of the hoax sites I referenced are
conservative, they are merely alternatives.
Their files still exist and even provide directions to minimize the spread of hoaxes, chain letters, urban myths and other bogus information being routed around the Internet.
Nope. Snopes seems to be self validating.
Yes, definitely yes but still useful.
CARTOON FIXED ... (Thanks bvw).
Snopes claims the story about Uncle Don Carney is an urban legend. My father heard the thing as it happened.
There's a website ran by a fella who calls himself "Jim Rob" or something.
I think its called something like "Freeper Public" or something.