Facebook Begins Marking 'Fake News' As 'Disputed' (wdrb.com) 208
An anonymous reader writes:
Facebook is now marking fake news as "disputed," several sites reported today. "According to Facebook's Help Center, news stories that are reported as fake by people on Facebook may be reviewed by independent, third-party fact-checkers," writes WDRB Media. "The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles. A story will be marked as disputed if fact-checkers find the story to be fake."
Mashable reports that the feature was rolled out quietly, and didn't gain much attention until it was noticed Friday by a reporter from Gizmodo, who tweeted a screenshot showing Facebook's new "disputed" icon. Further investigation revealed Facebook's help center now includes a page explaining how news gets marked as disputed, and another page informing users how to mark a news story as fake (which points out this feature "isn't available to everyone yet.")
Mashable reports that the feature was rolled out quietly, and didn't gain much attention until it was noticed Friday by a reporter from Gizmodo, who tweeted a screenshot showing Facebook's new "disputed" icon. Further investigation revealed Facebook's help center now includes a page explaining how news gets marked as disputed, and another page informing users how to mark a news story as fake (which points out this feature "isn't available to everyone yet.")
Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a poor move by Facebook. So basically all articles from Faux News will not say fake but will say disputed. This does almost nothing for the poor people who don't know Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and believe it to be fact. On top of this I see it as more ammunition for the right wingers claiming the left is trying to dispute their claims.
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:4, Insightful)
What they need is another tag: "biased". Because often news on right or left media outlets are not exactly fake, but they're presented in a way that favors a political view.
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well make that tag automatic for all news posts.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It should just be under the page header. "Warning. All information presented in any linked articles is subject to extreme bias, and cannot be trusted."
Otherwise, Facebook's labeling of "disputed" will render Facebook itself legitimately biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there's a rather large difference between opinion (e.g. Is allowing large numbers of refugees into the country good or bad) and flat-out falsehood (e.g. The Bowling Green terror attack or the Friday night terror attack in Sweden).
97% of relevantly qualified scientists agree (Score:3)
Would that be enough to get someone's statement that denies human-caused global warming/climate change labelled as false?
or does it have to be 9 out of 10 dentists who agree?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the majority of all news would end up being "disputed" as long as there are more than one opinion on it.
Left is volcano eruptions, earthquakes and weather that may escape the "disputed" label.
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the problem with this. (Score:1)
Who determines what's true? Who will be the final arbiter? All this becomes is tyranny of the majority. This is no fix.
Re: That's the problem with this. (Score:2)
The final arbiter should be AI software (Score:2)
A joint, open-sourced AI project by IBM, Google, and leading universities should be built to serve as an objective, disinterested physical and social world modeller and it can answer truth-likelihood and objectiveness/bias tendency of all statements except those whose answer is 42.
We could call it "Oracle" - no wait, scratch that. Any other suggestions for its name?
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:5, Insightful)
And who gets to determine that a news item has "turned out to be true"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Fox News is credible compared to that crap. You got anything from Fox News? Not that that would necessarily be convincing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how every time Snopes is wrong - and it's quite fucking often - it's in a direction that is biased left.
Snopes have credibility. You don't have credibility.
I don't think that anything that you 'notice' counts as relevant to the rest of us. You notice what you want to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
The bar isn't "is it true?", the bar is "is it widely debunked?" So it's actually fairly easy to judge. Lots of respected media outlets debunked pizzagate, for example.
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:5, Insightful)
...Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and [people] believe it to be fact.
Fox may be "conservative slanted" and it's not to my taste - I stick mostly to CNN & BBC - but it is typically factually accurate. O'Reilly having a miscredited guest on talking about Sweden was enough to make headlines and is a rare exception to the rule. Neither CNN nor Fox make a habit out of mis-stating facts and, when they do, they both have reasonable track records of correcting themselves. Both have stellar records compared to our current White House.
All sources are slanted and there are many places you can seek out and find genuinely bogus stories, but neither CNN nor Fox should be labelled blanketly "fake news."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: factually accurate (Score:2)
I stick mostly to CNN & BBC - but it is typically factually accurate.
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
Re: factually accurate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. BBC is an intelligence propaganda outlet, like the rest of the mainstream media. The only confusion was the timing of the scripted news piece stating that WTC7 had collapsed.
We are being had by these phonies. Don't make excuses for them. They know exactly what they are doing. BBC is not your friend.
LOL. The competence you imbue your dastardly enemies with is truly staggering.
I mean you really ought to give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
If your prime example of the BBC falsifying information is a moment of confusion while scrambling around in international turmoil more than 15 years ago, I don't think I'll be abandoning them as as a news source just yet. Prematurely announcing the collapse was an understandable mistake, not remotely an attempt at propaganda.
Surely if they were really a problem you could find something a little more persuasive.
Re: falsifying information (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's worse than that when you know it on beforehand. Had nothing to do with confusion.
Oh! Now I see! Once we eliminate the absurd notion that a mistake was made during all of the confusion, we're left with the obvious conclusion that the BBC had prior knowledge of the events. It's so clear now! How did I miss it?
Perhaps because I'm not a paranoid, conspiracy-theorist whack-job.
Re: (Score:2)
I stick mostly to CNN & BBC - but it is typically factually accurate.
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
Thanks for putting your other comments into context. I used to be a truther. Then I grew the fuck up.
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with Fox is that it isn't news, it's opinion. The reporting of factual information is just a small, unimportant aspect of their programming. They are about producing a narrative. For example, they won't just report that Chelsea Manning said something, they will mention it in passing and then spend half an hour talking about what an "ungrateful traitor" she is. The news bit is just a jumping off point for the rant, the rant being the main content.
And then half an hour later the President tweets the same thing. That's what they are about, feeding people the narrative.
Re: fake news = ... (Score:3)
Fake news = A news story made up in whole or substantially with intentionally verifiability untrue information in it.
I think news with deliberate omissions in it, to manipulate the people into accepting 'alternative facts' as truth, also constitutes fake news.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. To me, a lie of omission is just as bad when you can be certain the source knew that they had left it out.
Re: (Score:2)
He asks his question, camera turns away, then off.
Newscaster: 'Putin shunned BBC reporter asking about the terrible humanitarian disaster in Syria.'
The real, complete, version however, shows the camera turning back to the couple, with Putin attending the reporter for about 15 minutes.
Now that is what I call a display of deliberately generated fake news
Re: Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:4, Insightful)
Under Obama we saw an escalation of tensions between the US and Russia
Funny, I thought we saw it under Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet now the Trump administration are being undermined by the left every chance they get by the Democrats who are butt hurt over losing control of government under Obama and losing the election to Trump. They would rather see WW3 then let Trump and the Republicans improve America in a positive manner simply because they underestimated the determination of the "deplorables" and the apathy of the liberal left.
lol. You have to be a straight up idiot to think that. I guess you get a free pass if you're 12 or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not mark it what it really is, fake. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. I predict that the marking will be very quickly subverted and *all* articles will be marked disputed, regardless of source.
Re: (Score:2)
What a poor move by Facebook. So basically all articles from Faux News will not say fake but will say disputed. This does almost nothing for the poor people who don't know Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and believe it to be fact. On top of this I see it as more ammunition for the right wingers claiming the left is trying to dispute their claims.
Fox News is not fake news.
They have a history of pushing biased narratives, often biased to the point of misleading the reader, but that doesn't make them "fake news", it just makes them a bad primary source of information.
Fake news is simpler than that, it's news that is simply made up, it talks about events that didn't occur, uses quotes that people didn't make, and it doesn't publish corrections because it was never trying to be correct in the first place.
There's a reason Trump has spent the last few wee
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well, as long as they SIGNED something. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles.
The very people that I see on social media passing around some of the most egregiously toxic meme "explainers" and the like also won't go a week without citing posts on Poynter about how important it is to show integrity in reporting. Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. Hillary Clinton, for example, signed all sorts of things recording her promises not to do the very things she then went right and did as secretary of state. People who illegally register to vote do so by signing a document
Re:Oh, well, as long as they SIGNED something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Those who sign that should be considered informed and neutral in the context of Facebook employees, given a spectrum that starts with "anti-Trump" and ends with "supporters of violent anti-Trump demonstrations and opposed to democracy if it means Trump can get elected".
Re:Oh, well, as long as they SIGNED something. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the lesser of two evils. There are too many gullible idiots out there. Look at how many people on Slashdot fell for pizzagate.
You either have a small number of errors marking stuff as fake, or you have a tidal wave of fake news. And I'm sure if it does get abused, we will see hundreds of articles pointing it out.
Re:Oh, well, as long as they SIGNED something. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the lesser of two evils. There are too many gullible idiots out there. Look at how many people on Slashdot fell for pizzagate.
The question is, does a disputed tag actually meaningfully help? I mean pretty much everyone knows that pizzagate is "disputed", that is some claim it happened and some claim it never did. The "truthers" of all colors will never care that the mainstream refute their story, it's the conspiracy/establishment/illuminati trying to censor the truth. Unless you have the balls to label it as "fake" this is pretty much meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
We can only hope the contrast with non-disputed stories is enough to have an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it may cause harm (Score:2)
There is so much fake news today that people don't know what to believe. Alternative sources can at least get people who want to look a different source for facts, or often a more complete set of facts. Flagging "disputed" from a biased perspective does not help anyone return a full set of facts.
It's really funny how the anti-Trump people bash Fox, yet ignore their own team (not really, it's quite common). FSN is often just as left leaning as CNN or MSNBC depending on the time of day and show running.
The
Re: (Score:3)
There is so much fake news today that people don't know what to believe. Alternative sources can at least get people who want to look a different source for facts, or often a more complete set of facts. Flagging "disputed" from a biased perspective does not help anyone return a full set of facts.
It's really funny how the anti-Trump people bash Fox, yet ignore their own team (not really, it's quite common). FSN is often just as left leaning as CNN or MSNBC depending on the time of day and show running.
The big problem in the US today is that there are simply no reliable sources of news. Just as rare, are reasonable opinions that argue with a full set of facts.
The problem with both Fox and CNN isn't that they don't present the facts, they do. However, they then spin those same facts during their gossip sessions with "analysts". They also tend to pick out which news stories to present. If they spent less time gossiping with analysts they would have much more time to present all news stories, not just a selection of them. The problem with this is that they found that they get better ratings through talking politics than anything else.
Do you play dominoes on pizza or pasta? (Score:1)
> Look at how many people on Slashdot fell for pizzagate.
What do you mean 'fell for'? Very few people ever believed there were kids under the pizza parlor. Lots of people thought that Podesta and Alefantis had super creepy taste in "art" (do you have "art" of naked, bound teenagers lying around?) and thought that maybe there would be enough lying around in public for an actual police investigation.
And not many people have ever lost "pizza related handkercheifs" or wondered whether they played dominoes
Re: (Score:2)
"Morons and nuclear weapons don't mix, so I'm thinking it's time to disempower the morons, one way or another."
Several of those "morons" in the past (you know, the regular people...everyone except you and the people in power) took steps that averted use of nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
And do some research, for fuck sake.
lol. It thinks it's a "researcher".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. "
John Hancock would like a word with you.
Re:Oh, well, as long as they SIGNED something. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. "
John Hancock would like a word with you.
John Hancock was then willing to take up arms and put his life on the line to back up the liberty proclaimed in the document he risked everything by signing. Do you REALLY think you're making some sort of valid point by comparing that to a Facebook employee sitting in a cubicle clicking "disputed" when something runs against the narratives they're paid to favor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is disputed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This won't go over well. (Score:2)
I find it odd that Facebook is giving people the ability to vote on the trust worthiness of the news. This will give the public a way to basically rate the mainstream media on a per article basis and as we all know most people don't trust the media. This is going to terribly blow back on all of their faces and make the MSM look even worse.
What a time to be alive!
Only disputed when confirmed false? (Score:2)
Anyone else seeing shades of deliberate misinformation here? This is like "teaching the controversy" all over. The side that's blatantly lying just has "an opinion equally worth our time", is that it? Anytime El-Presidente Drumpf lies through his teeth, it's merely "some people may dispute this story"?
*FACTS*. AREN'T. OPINIONS.
This is physically revolting. If they're going to pull this crap, Facebook has no legitimate excuse for its continued existence. Burn their HQ to the ground; nothing of value will be
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the post-factual era. It's gonna be awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to the post-factual era. It's gonna be awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Both Democrats and Republicans selectively use facts to support their views. Both sides are fuckwits.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Newt: The moon is made of cheese.
Woman: My ass it is.
Newt: But people believe it's made of cheese.
Woman: Astronauts have been there, it's all rock & dust.
Newt: Well you liberals can rely on statistics, which are theoretically right, but I'm with the humans on this.
That is *not* selective use of facts. It would need at least one fact to qualify as that.
Re: Only disputed when confirmed false? (Score:2)
"people believe it's made of cheese" is a fact. A stupid fact, but a fact nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Newt: The moon is made of cheese.
Woman: My a** it is.
Maybe I've been on the Internet too long, but I fully expected that to go off the rails in the third line, e.g.
Newt: Your a** is made of cheese? So I guess you're telling me I can bite your a**.
Re: (Score:2)
This one doesn't get better. Quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit like this seems a lot more pervasive to me (and if it's caught the retraction ends up on page 13 in the personals) - http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
SCUBA Bong Urban Legend marked, "Disputed!" (Score:1)
Re: Only disputed when confirmed false? (Score:2)
They should have just labeled this whole effort the "Ministry of News Accuracy" or to hit this fucking nail exactly on the head, the "Ministry of Truth".
Obligatory (Score:1)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Disputed? (Score:3)
Cowardly.
Living language (Score:5, Interesting)
Total race-baiting, dog-whistle propaganda is labeled 'Disputed'?
Cowardly.
English has always been a "living" language: new words come into being, old words suffer from disuse, and meanings change. The syntax and grammer evolves and changes with the times.
We're seeing this right with many of the words in common usage in the media. "Racist", "sexist", "islamaphobe" and a host of other terms are losing their dictionary meaning.
I'm seeing lots of people on gab.ai [slashdot.org] who are completely blase' about being called racist. Someone will say "that's racist" or "you're a racist", and people are like "yeah, I'm racist. Whatever". I find it astonishing how quickly this has happened. Not 1 year ago the term "racist" meant that you believed a particular race was inferior. Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
This is similar to how past words had a stronger meaning. Terms like "you're a jerk" (person who masterbates a lot) and "you suck" (you perform fellatio) have lost a lot of their power and meaning. The phrase "St Paul’s Cathedral Is Amusing, Awful, and Artificial" was once taken as high praise.
So the words "disputed" and "fake" will be taking on new meaning, and in a year or two will come to have colloquial definitions that match their usage, which is not the usage we assign to them right now. "Disputed" will probably come to mean "politically charged", and "fake" will come to mean "from non-mainstream sources" without any of today's connotations of meaning.
It's just the living language, undergoing change.
Re: Living language (Score:1)
Yeah it's nothing to worry about, just a new way to speak! Let's call it... newspeak?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm seeing lots of people on gab.ai [slashdot.org] who are completely blase' about being called racist.
Because racism is being made more socially acceptable in certain subgroups, the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc), and who nominated an attorney general who was rejected as a judge for racist statements, is a big reason.
Not 1 year ago the term "racist" meant that you believed a particular race was inferior. Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
I'm not sure what you mean about the body posture, but I think "racist" still means that you believe a race is inferior. I think a big difference in the past few years is social media. It used to be people would make racist
Re: (Score:2)
Because racism is being made more socially acceptable in certain subgroups
This is true, but only because of what that poster was saying: people are saying "yeah, I guess I'm racist now. Whatever" and thus the taboo is weakened in "certain subgroups", and it's due primarily to the broad over-application of the term. I've termed this phenomenon the ongoing catastrophic failure of Operation Conflation: Progressives trying to fight back against a rise in visible racism by inflating the definition of the term is having the opposite effect as intended by weakening the taboo against re
Re: (Score:2)
the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc)
Fake news got you down, learn the real news!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/... [cnn.com]
Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc)
Fake news got you down, learn the real news!
a) Stop abusing the term "fake news" to discredit mainstream media stories you disagree with.
b) Not only was I completely aware of the stuff you're referencing, I was actually talking about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/... [cnn.com]
Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.
It strains credibility to claim that Trump didn't heard the original question clearly because he actually said the name "David Duke" in his answer. But, even if he were somehow confused about the question on Sunday it still took him till Thursday to disavow Duke, and when he did it was a very dismissive denial, far le
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
Please tell me you aren't talking about the Sieg Heil body posture.
Re: (Score:2)
http://abc7ny.com/politics/kel... [abc7ny.com]
That is the story I believe being alluded to.
Re: (Score:2)
Spelling too!
(Come on, fess up - you're a master baiter, arencha?
A fair system (Score:4, Insightful)
All it would take for a fair system is for Facebook to let news viewers vote Real/Misleading/Unknown and show the percentages underneath like "30% real/60% misleading/10% unknown". You see a large percentage of Misleading, you can double check the story.
Why would Facebook choose to hire a group of "fact checkers" instead? Unless they wanted "fact checking" to be biased is a particular way...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That just leads to the problem of poll-flooding.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how that's an important "problem". So what if some people say a story is misleading when it's actually not? You check another source and verify the story is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Often people write or say things with the intention to be understood.
Slashdot (Score:1)
Nostalgic (Score:2)
A story will be marked as disputed if fact-checkers find the story to be fake.
Remember when fact-checking was, like, a basic part of writing news stories as a professional journalist? Nice to see Facebook picking up the slack for something "news organizations" don't think is really necessary anymore (because they don't want to pay for the time/resources to do it).
Using "disputed" ADDS credibility... (Score:2)
You'll just end up ADDING credibility to false stories when you say it's "disputed". Disputed can be used for things like "dark matter" where there is some evidence one can point to, but nothing concrete can be derived from it.
Fake news is usually based on pure conjecture and hyperbole, in a very fuzzy math / connect the dots kind of thinking. People who believe fake news WANT to believe it and will use ANY wiggle room as validation.
Will people believe anything not disputed now? (Score:2)
I can see at least some people saying "See, it's not 'Disputed' on FB, it must be true!"
Or maybe almost everything will be "disputed"
Appellate procedure (Score:2)
See the problem? (Score:3)
The problem is the fucking bubble, Facebook, wherein people log in and stay.
Facebook is not a goddam news site.
it's social media where relatives and friends post inane shit.
News is at news sites.
(Fake)News on Facebook? (Score:2)
How do you actually get news on facebook?
I only get posts of friends, their timelines etc. and: advertisements. I never saw any news on my Facebook visits. Or do people consider "advertisements" as "news"? But perhaps I once checked a box: "no news" or something, no idea.
"Disputed" by the left. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another way to cover for their bias, especially when they're as selective on policy enforcement as Twitter.
I guess the new bar of "making it" will be having your story 'disputed' by Facebook's favorites.
Gizmodo, how amusing (Score:2)
How amusing that someone from Gizmodo talks about "fake news" when they are quite good at writing fake news themselves. That site is a flaming pile of dog shit.
The Clintons are getting their gatekeepers (Score:2)
Two news items bemoaning the lack of internet gatekeepers...
1) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
2) http://www.drudgereportarchive... [drudgereportarchives.com]
> Clinton was asked whether she favored curb
Re:snopes? (Score:4, Informative)
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
Re: (Score:3)
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
Not quite [snopes.com].
The theory started with conservatives, though didn't take off. Some Clinton supporters (and possibly some people associated with the campaign) pushed it a bit during the primary battle, but again it didn't take off.
Where the conspiracy theory actually got traction, ie the start of the birther movement, was with Republicans.
Realistically the start of the birther movement was Obama running for president while being a black person who was somewhat exotic and spent some time growing up outside of the
A Clinton organization evaluating itself? (Score:2)
Given Snopes' funding by Clinton interests, I'd be highly suspect of them [effectively] clearing themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Mark it disputed for disagreeing with itself.