Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Forbes ^ | 12/22/2016 | Kalev Leetaru

Posted on 12/29/2016 6:49:02 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush

Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”

When I first read through the Daily Mail article I immediately suspected the story itself must certainly be “fake news” because of how devastating the claims were and that given that Snopes.com was so heavily used by the journalistic community, if any of the claims were true, someone would have already written about them and companies like Facebook would not be partnering with them. I also noted that despite having been online for several hours, no other major mainstream news outlet had written about the story, which is typically a strong sign of a false or misleading story. Yet at the same time, the Daily Mail appeared to be sourcing its claims from a series of emails and other documents from a court case, some of which it reproduced in its article and, perhaps most strangely, neither Snopes nor its principles had issued any kind of statement through its website or social media channels disclaiming the story.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: factcheck; snopes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
First article I have read about this from a site like Forbes and where they have actually tried to contact Snopes to see if the article is true.
1 posted on 12/29/2016 6:49:02 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization...
Unless they're referring to the principles under which the site was founded and operates, I'm thinking that the word they want is principals.
2 posted on 12/29/2016 6:57:07 PM PST by Bob (Now, Republicans get to sing "Happy Days Are Here Again". Enjoy the suck, rats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
I had assumed...

I had assumed...

I had assumed....

Sounds like this guy did not do any fact checking just assumed.

Aren't reporters suppose to check things out for themselves?

3 posted on 12/29/2016 7:00:02 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

Read the article. He does precisely that, he investigates his assumptions and finds that he was wrong.


4 posted on 12/29/2016 7:02:11 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Saw that. Good catch.


5 posted on 12/29/2016 7:02:37 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
From what I've read Snopes is filled with lefties.
6 posted on 12/29/2016 7:03:36 PM PST by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Snopes has put out hundreds of articles per day for years in support of their god in the white mosque.

Have been wondering what would happen when the Mikkelsons have to pay federal income tax again.

Wonder what Al Sharpton’s plan is....


7 posted on 12/29/2016 7:03:46 PM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

I was hoping he’d write about the claim that his new wife is a former prostitute that also works for Snopes.


8 posted on 12/29/2016 7:05:42 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
The author of this piece is shocked, shocked, that on close examination Snopes.com appears to be disreputable.

I guess he doesn't read FR.

9 posted on 12/29/2016 7:07:45 PM PST by TChad (Propagandists should not be treated like journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad

He had not, apparently, had a reason to dig deeper until recently.


10 posted on 12/29/2016 7:09:23 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush; Jim Robinson

Snopes USED to be a decent site. Now, it is CLEARLY a leftwing hack site.

Jim, I make a plea again to you to consider removing snopes as a credible source on the homepage of FR. :)


11 posted on 12/29/2016 7:11:35 PM PST by SoFloFreeper (Isaiah 25:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Agreed. Let’s remove the Snopes as a reputable fact check site. It is run by an embezzler, porn star, and dominatrix. All exceedingly liberal.


12 posted on 12/29/2016 7:16:05 PM PST by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Good post. I always thought Snopes was leftist based on which news they decided to check.


13 posted on 12/29/2016 7:18:46 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
I did read the article. He did not investigate until someone else did the leg work for him.

I knew snopes was dubious over a decade ago because I fact checked their fact checking. I do not depend on just one source for anything. I am not a reporter just a goof-ball with a keyboard. Yet I knew things that this "academic" did not because he assumed, he never questioned until the wheels started coming off the wagon.

He gets a small pat for actually looking in the hole after someone else dug it. He gets a kick for not doing his job for years.

14 posted on 12/29/2016 7:19:25 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Snopes is nothing but a pack of leftard scumbags, still yearning for the sixties.


15 posted on 12/29/2016 7:23:55 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Is no one literate save thee and me?


16 posted on 12/29/2016 7:24:58 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
He had not, apparently, had a reason to dig deeper until recently.

Meaning, he had never read a conservative critique of Snopes, or he did not consider that it might be valid.

To his credit, he seems willing to have his mind changed by facts.

17 posted on 12/29/2016 7:25:08 PM PST by TChad (Propagandists should not be treated like journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Unfortunately, Forbes is another one of those sites that blocks readers who use AdBlock. Since I refuse to turn it off, all I need to do is read the brilliant comments by my fellow FReepers to know the real deal.


18 posted on 12/29/2016 7:36:19 PM PST by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

“as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes”

Uh, yeah. Right. Proves the author is a complete idiot.


19 posted on 12/29/2016 7:57:04 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

And until the Daily Mail article it appears nobody else did either. He lays out how he came upon the story and all the steps he took to confirm it. I’m not sure what else he could have done. Did you expect him to write this 5 years ago? Why him? Why not another reporter?
You appear to be singling out this one reporter for having done a job, following up on the DM article, that nobody else did.


20 posted on 12/29/2016 8:08:08 PM PST by wiggen (#JeSuisCharlie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson