Fact-checking and Rumor-dispelling Site Snopes.com Held Hostage By vendor (savesnopes.com) 401
Snopes.com, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet's oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. From a report: Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we've had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site's hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or -- most crucially -- place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.
I should probably fact check this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Rumor (Score:5, Funny)
Already debunked by snopes.
Re:Rumor (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, "debunked" here:
http://www.snopes.com/save-sno... [snopes.com] :-/
Re: (Score:3)
It's not uncommon for a hosting provider to require admin and technical contact as a condition of service. Of course, this lends it self to abuse, such as refusing to relinquish control, change DNS, etc. I've suffered through this, and advise a previous employer to not take that path when dealing with a deadbeat customer.
This is hard to fix, since the hoster will claim they are the owner if ti gets to the registrar level. Network Solutions has been from one extreme to the other in these cases, denying the r
Re:Rumor (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guess I'm a douchebag. I contracted the full development of a website with someone for exchange of services. I registered their domain and put it on my hosting, developed the website and put it online - all without anything up front, all in exchange for what he was selling - personal training. He never showed for his appointments at the gym. I got tired of it and cut loose. He wanted the domain. I added up all my expenses, including a very LOW fee for the hours I worked, and he refused to pay it, so I kept it. That IS how you should deal with a deadbeat customer, IMO.
In Snope's case, it seems like a very different story, but ultimately I'm glad I was in control of the name in my case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Rumor (Score:4, Informative)
you mean that pizzagate actually happened or what?
I mean seriously. surely you would have some actual examples.
the problem is that last year like 95% of fake shit and made up rumours were indeed republican/trump made up shit, so what the fuck should a fact checking site do? ignore pizzagate because it's "political"? what the fuck is political about debunking a blatant absurd lie?
Re: Rumor (Score:4, Interesting)
No, nothing so obviously as pizzagate. Snopes is very subtle when they politicize things.
Sometimes they debunk the spirit of the claim, rather than the facts (which may be true). Sometimes they invalid a claim by pointing out that some details are wrong, even though the origin of the claim is generally true.
Here's an example of the first: "Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... [snopes.com]
The stated claim is 100% true, yet snopes calls it "mostly false". She got the defendant a better deal and later laughed about it on film. Also notice the claim does not match the URL ("freed" versus "successfully defended"; they do not mean the same thing.) Now, Snopes has all the details on why this particular event does not make her an evil person, but lists the claim as "mostly false".
By labeling a claim "mostly false" that is 100% factually true (even if the spirit of claim is false), they are inserting their own biases into the discussion and not merely presenting facts. They are also throwing red herrings unrelated to the original claim into the mix to make the "mostly false" claim more defensible. They are editorializing.
(Disclaimer: This is neither an anti- nor pro- Hillary Clinton post. This is merely a convenient example that I could remember off the top my head.)
Re: Rumor (Score:4, Informative)
Lawyers! My kingdom for Lawyers! And a horse! (Score:3)
How is this not outright theft? If they are failing to pay you money they are contractually obligated to pay, wouldn't that invalidate the contract, or put them in an actionable position for damages?
Re:Lawyers! My kingdom for Lawyers! And a horse! (Score:5, Informative)
The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. How is this not outright theft?
Because they are half-owners of the site (Barbara Mikkelson sold her share) and in the middle of a lawsuit.
The gofundme is here, for what it's worth, with more information: https://www.gofundme.com/saves... [gofundme.com]
Re:Lawyers! My kingdom for Lawyers! And a horse! (Score:4, Informative)
But only one side of the information.
The two and a half month old complaint makes for interesting reading: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Snopes-COMPLAINT.pdf
More to the story (Score:5, Insightful)
That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.
There's almost always 2 sides of the story, and Snopes isn't doing themselves any favors failing to acknowledge the other side's grievances. I'd sure want to understand the big picture here before donating.
Re:More to the story (Score:4, Insightful)
There's almost always 2 sides of the story, and Snopes isn't doing themselves any favors failing to acknowledge the other side's grievances. I'd sure want to understand the big picture here before donating.
Yup. No mention of the party, the contract details, etc. Just "give us money to file a lawsuit". It's hard for us to figure out what's really going on, especially because they used a Private Registration service. I really encourage people to never do that except for small non-commercial websites.
They apparently have 14 people on staff - this is a small business but not a mom & pop that could easily be running on the razor's edge.
Rating: partly true.
Re:More to the story (Score:5, Informative)
Just "give us money to file a lawsuit".
More like, "give us money to defend against a lawsuit that was filed against us months ago, which we're not going to mention because it might make us sound unsympathetic (at the very least)." The complaint is here [poynter.org].
Re:More to the story (Score:5, Informative)
So to summarize:
Ex partner / ex wife sells her half of Bardav(Snopes) to Proper Media.. but not really because that would illegal since companies can not own shares in type S corporations.. so instead she cut her share up between Proper Media's owners as an end run around the law.
She told them it was permitted according to Snopes bylaws but now there is a question if that's true, in which case they should be suing her.
They accuse Green from Proper Media of working exclusively on Snopes and not other projects.
Green (and partial stock holder) jumps ship after the fight and aligns with Mikkelson giving Mikkelson just over 50% and control of Bardav (Snopes).
Green takes 3 employees and their equipment with him. Proper media considers it theft.
A bunch of angry ramblings about Expenses they don't think should have been permitted.
Accusations of Fraud for wanting a larger salary than they think is appropriate
There is nothing here that makes me want to take Proper Media's side in this. From their own words, they put themselves into the middle of a messy divorce by offering to buy out the ex wife and were shocked when that didn't go over well.
Re: More to the story (Score:3)
There was a loyalty agreement that the site remains under control of proper media. It seems that Mikkelson also used the site to pay for his divorce expenses and just took what he thinks the corporation owed him as well as outright theft of employees and equipment.
Short: Mikkelson screwed over his partners and got caught stealing from his own company.
Re: More to the story (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds to me more like Snopes was always mainly Milkkelson's creation. And he got stiffed by his wife when they divorced.
I say this for 2 reasons. Snopes was Mikkelson's username on Usenet which he used for debunking myths before the couple ever met.
And now, the site continues to be run, just as before editorially by Mikkelson, without input by his ex-wife, and certainly no input by Proper Media, who's connection was only ever as the buyer of the wife's share.
Mikkelson is Snopes. It wouldn't be Snopes any more if the site was wrestled away from him. In much the same way that Slashdot isn't really the old Slashdot anymore after it's being bought out and run be different people at least twice over.
Clearly there needs to be some kind of financial settlement, as Proper Media bought a share, and have since been taking the entire advertising revenue. But it would be wrong if the site were taken away from Mikkelson, or if he was left with no way of running it as a financially viable site.
Re: More to the story (Score:4, Informative)
Barbara Mikkelson put a huge and very visible amount of work into the site over, I think, pretty much its entire two-decade-long existence. It was quite common to come across fact checks researched and written by her. Before their divorce the site was generally presented as a joint effort by the Mikkelsons.
Re:More to the story (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a dispute between two equal parties in a company trying to take it in different directions. Since the party seeking donations isn't being upfront and honest about things, and actually seems to be deliberately deceptive, I tend to support the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
Google "Elyssa Young snopes"
Re: (Score:2)
It's far more than that. The group that bought out the wife claims they have been frozen out of management and the other partner is draining funds from the company. the complaint [poynter.org] paints a dirty picture:
"Mikkelson was unhappy that Barbara maintained ownership of half of what he always considered to be his company after the divorce. Thus, after Proper Media’s purchase of Barbara’s share, Mikkelson sought to finally gain control of Bardav by aligning and conspiring with Green. Although Green purp
They are actually not equal anymore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've raised $111k out of their $500k goal in the 6 hours they've been up so far (4000+ donations).
Re: (Score:3)
Oversimplification of the actual truth: there are many interpretations of any given set of actions and, often, very limited means to understand the intent behind them. That goes even more so with the crappy reporting that keeps getting worse lately.
Looking at TFS...maybe the other party is trying to force them to comply with some unreasonable demand (sell the brand? take a lower % of revenue?) and using this as a tool to starve them out.
Maybe the other party believes they own all the content based on the
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there are. Where did you get the stupid idea that there aren't?
Snopes is saying, "That's our domain"! That is their side of the story.
The other company could come right back and say, "You signed a contract stating XYZ, so we will not relinquish control of the site until XYZ is taken care of" or something to that effect. That is the OTHER side of the story, which we have not yet heard. This makes two sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have just made a compelling argument for a site like snopes.com.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be four sides to that story, no?
The truth is, there are only "two sides" to a story if one of the sides wants you to believe some bullshit. It's like if my kid knocks over an expensive lamp and then tries to say the goldfish did it.
We only need sites like Snopes because one side in the political debate wants you to believe there is no such thing as truth or facts or reality. "Biggest inauguration crowd in history", or "biggest electoral victory ever", for
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly they're merely highlighting that seeking a second viewpoint may add some new information that better helps you evaluate the story you're hearing from a single source.
This does not prevent you seeking additional inputs, and indeed where the first two resources differ that is itself a signal that supplementary information may be of value.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes there is just one side which is right
That's why I said MOST of the time.
When someone tells you there are two sides to a debate they are normally trying to make one side look sensible by choosing a single other opponent who is extremely stupid by comparison.
Well, considering we know nothing other than that there's a contract dispute, why don't you pull out your crystal ball and tell us what's up?
Why You MUST Own Your DNS (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely why you must always OWN your DNS and Hosting yourself. Never, EVER let someone else register and host your domain for you. Always DO IT YOURSELF or find yourself in the same boat with Snopes.
Re: (Score:3)
Never, EVER co-own a company with your spouse, then get divorced, and your spouse sells his or her share to a company (technically, the company's owners, due to the type of company Bardav is) that you now find yourself in a dispute with.
This has nothing to do with the company managing Snopes, they co-o
Re: (Score:3)
How in the world does it help to OWN your DNS yourself and then your company's two major shareholders get into a dispute with one another?
The fact of the matter is that for very small companies with >1 people, the "you" in YOURSELF is not an entity with temporal continuity. So doing it YOURSELF doesn't much help you when "you" shatters into two non-reconcilable halves :-(
Something here doesn't smell right. (Score:5, Interesting)
First, snopes.com is registered with networksolutions.com, not their hosting provider (Peer 1). It's not clear here that there's anything stopping Mikkelson et al from grabbing a backup (or even live version) of the site, getting set up on a new web host, and then switching the IP, like many others who have had a hosting provider suddenly go crap on them. Snopes appears to run on Wordpress, and, well, it's really not that hard to yank a Wordpress site from one provider and get it up on another.
Second, they're looking for $500k. $500k? Because of problems at their web host?
And... if they're not migrating to a new web host, won't most of the $500k being donated go back to the web host that is ostensibly holding their data hostage, rewarding that web host for being jerks?
This really doesn't make sense.
Re:Something here doesn't smell right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, "http://www.snopes.com/save-snopes/" redirects to "https://www.savesnopes.com". Maybe I'm just being stupid, but how did they get that url to redirect if they "cannot modify the site"?
Re: (Score:3)
They said they have editorial control, which means they control the CONTENT of the site.
"Cannot modify the site" probably means the back end running of the site.
Re:Something here doesn't smell right. (Score:4, Informative)
Something doesn't make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the story [poynter.org] is well worth a read. This is a shareholder dispute. One shareholder is trying to take over the company from its other, 50/50 owners. The gofundme appears to be making wild claims about what is happening. Its been widely reported that Mikkelson (an original 50% owner) has been treating the company like his personal piggy bank in various prior legal actions. To put his dispute with his prior cofounder to bed, she sold 50% interest to this new group of owners and then appears to have go
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually a dispute between legal owners, a result from split in co-ownership after a messy divorce. Further details are provided in comments above this.
From what I can see, the "save snopes" summary is being deliberately misleading, as they talk about the company "contracted to provide services", etc. No, they were sold an interest in the company. And frankly, that sort of dishonesty is highly disturbing when coming from the head of a fact-checking site.
It's the exact opposite from a clear-cut case.
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me, I already well know it. I tend to think that the conceit of "unbiased journalism" is an untenable goal in practice, even if admirable in theory.
I'd much rather someone tell me up front what their political biases are so I can weigh that appropriately when reading something they're presenting to me. I'm of the opinion that it's virtually impossible for an organization or individual to report on *any* issue in an unbiased fashion. As such, I think it's more honest not to even pretend that's what
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Domain registrar is Network Solutions. Contact support, take control the domain after confirming ownership and copy the site to another vendor or host and change DNS. I had a small business admin contact pass away once and I KNOW Network Solutions will work with you to get control back to the appropriate party.
They can't manage their domain, but we're supposed to believe that if we send them $10 they can manage that?
nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then how did they setup this page if they had their access cutoff: http://www.snopes.com/save-snopes/ [snopes.com] ???
I have a feeling this "fact checking" website isn't telling us all the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
from the fucking summary: "Although we maintain editorial control..." which one could interpret to mean 'we still have CMS access but not file access'
Re: (Score:2)
Except they run WordPress and so, given "editorial access" they can install Duplicator plugin and clone the site elsewhere trivially.
WordPress may be a steaming pile of excrement, but at least it's easy to move from host to host.
If they don't have Administrator access, well, they're just fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in the summary:
Although we maintain editorial control (for now)
They are limited in their control of the site, but adding pages (apparently with redirects) is still something they can do.
Expect more of the same (Score:2)
In other worlds, same old same old. Vendor-lockin isn't a new concept any more than fake news is (National Enquirer)
Re: (Score:2)
Web hosting is as old as Geocities or earlier.
Always another side (Score:5, Informative)
In August of 2015, Snopes entered a revenue-share/content and ad management agreement with a company called Proper Media, formed earlier that very year. In early 2016, Proper arranged to buy Barbara’s [Estranged wife of the owner] share of Bardav [the company they two started, owner of Snopes], replacing her as co-owner of the company.
Re:Always another side (Score:5, Informative)
Ahh, so they half-own the thing and they're trying to cut the other owner out. NOW it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You got it backward, the person who put up the gofundme is trying to cut Proper Media out. See their complaint. [poynter.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the owners of PM own slightly less than half of it, 5/12 to the Snopes 7/12 (ish), since 1 of the people that held part of the divorcing member's shares went from PM to Snopes.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for the link.
The story (as told by Snopes) just didn't add up and, ironically, needed a third party to help explain what was going on.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, Snopes is failing pretty badly at presenting the facts of this story.
Snopes was founded by David and Barbara Mikkelson, and ownership formalized in 2003 as Bardav Inc.
In 2014 the two began divorce proceedings
In August of 2015, Snopes entered a revenue-sharing, content and ad management agreement with a company called Proper Media, formed earlier that same year.
In early 2016, Proper Media bought Barbara’s share of Bardav, making them a co-owner of the company (and therefore a co-owner of Snopes)
Da
Re: (Score:2)
First archive the site (Score:2)
Then help snopes.com to rebuild the site with them holding the full ownership.
Before you donate... (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth understanding that there are, as always, two sides to the story. You can get a sense of the side of the "vendor" (otherwise known as 50% shareholder) by reading this [poynter.org].
1 of 5 Proper Media employees gave David control (Score:5, Insightful)
That link [poynter.org], is a complaint from Proper Media to the courts, saying that:
- at first, Snopes.com was owned by David and Barbara Mikkelson
- the two divorced, and Barbara held on to her 50% of the company
- then she effectively sold her 50% to Proper Media, a company
- but technically she couldn't do that, because Snopes.com had to be owned only by people, not by companies
- so, she sold it to 5 people who owned/ran/were Proper Media company. These 5 people pinky-promised that it would be just like Proper Media itself held the shares.
- so then, it was 50% David Mikkelson, 50% Proper Media
- but then one of the Proper Media people by the name of Green conspired with / got seduced by David Mikkelson, and went over to the dark side! (cue dramatic music)
- now, with David's 50% plus a little bit more from Green who quit Proper Media and is now in David's employ, David controls more than 50%!
- that's not fair!! Green *promised* that he was holding the shares for Proper Media!
Personally, I'm not sure that Proper Media has a case. If there was a legal requirement that shares couldn't be sold to a company, only people, then there was a reason for this, exactly so that individuals could make decisions and not have to act like a coordinated legal entity. If Proper Media says that Green "should have" done such and such ... well, that's going to be hard to argue. So, legally, I think David Mikkelson has better standing.
Divorce Fallout (Score:2, Informative)
Fallout from Barbara and David Mikkelson's divorce (the Bardav company) - Proper Media who bought Barbara Mikkelson's 50% share vs David Mikkelson's other 50%. Proper Media alleges David misused funds from Snopes to pay for the divorce and honeymoon with new wife/Snopes employee Elyssa Young. Proper media also claims one of its shareholders - Vincent Green - secretly conspired to help David get control of Snopes. David says he terminated Proper Media's contract fair and square.
So basically...sounds like
Did I miss the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I miss some big news? When did snopes go back to being a fact checking site?
Sketchy track record, not involving politics (Score:5, Interesting)
They have an article [snopes.com] debunking the myth that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. As part of the evidence against this, they wrote:
The problem is that isn't true. My wife is a podiatrist who amputates toes routinely as part of her job. I discussed this with her and she said that the whole "relearning to walk" thing is in itself a myth, and that even people who have their big toes removed generally do just fine in no time. Try it yourself: walk across the floor with your big toe pulled upward so it doesn't hit the ground. Easy, right? And that's the big toe; a vestigial extra-pinky toe hanging off the side would contribute almost nothing to balance or your gait.
I wrote them with this information. They replied, quite defensively, that I was wrong and that she did not have six toes. Uh, yeah, I totally agree! I still think they should have removed the invalid evidence that contradicts expert testimony. If you're proving that "1 + 1 = 2 because cats have wings", and I tell you cats don't actually have wings, it doesn't invalidate your premise but it does suggest that you'd want to update your proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't claim that I've proven Snopes to be wrong. I even agreed with their conclusion in the case I mentioned. But it does make me wonder how much other feedback they've ignored over the years, and it gave me the strong impression of "we're never wrong"-ism. When they write about other subjects where I can't turn to an expert sitting next to me at dinner to check their conclusions, did someone try to correct their facts on those subjects, too? I don't know. At least Wikipedia gives you a history of edits i
any back doors with http://message.snopes.com/ (Score:2)
any back doors with doing SQL injection on http://message.snopes.com/ [snopes.com]?
Solved the problem (Score:2)
What The Fuck? (Score:2)
This Slashdot discussion now seems to be plumbing the depths of the Devil's rectum to argue Clinton versus Trump.
WTF? What is wrong with you people?
Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
*citation needed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Snopes doesn't have a political agenda, nosirree!
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/ [snopes.com]
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.
And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat. In fact, pretty sure that it is the only thing that makes a person a Democrat.
I'm a registered Democrat, but that's because my state automatically registers you for a party when you vote in the primaries. Since I voted in the Democratic primaries this last time around I'm now registered as a Dem, but I've been registered as a Republican before when I've voted in the Republican primaries. Point being, I think Snopes was right about the fact that being registered to a particular party doesn't mean you are really an adherent to that party.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat.
So Trump is a democrat? Yay, we won!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Claim: Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was a Democrat.
Rating: Mixture
WHAT'S TRUE: Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat in the state of Florida back in 2006.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown.
Seems a reasonable summary of the facts to me. The guy registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago, we don't know what his political affiliation if any is n
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly some correlation between voter registration and party membership exists
This is the sort of information on which political parties must have done a lot of research. If they had a ballpark number for the 10 years out continued party membership of people who register Democrat at age 19, then they could give a guess at odds on whether he was still a Democrat, and instantly the article appears less biased. With one piece of data, "unknown" in the summary sounds too much
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, you sign up as a Republican, and on the way to work, the company who employs you suddenly turns into Trump University, and then one day, like Morning Joe, you announce to the public: "you know what, I'm just not into working for Trump University even though I'm going to continue to be a Conservative".
Now, it is true that a blind partisan Democrat can be
Re: (Score:2)
In that particular article, I think it was more a response for claims at the time that he was a Bernie person and hated Trump. Those more specific speculations were not supported by any evidence beyond a 10 year old voter registration record.
So yes, the claim that he 'was a democrat' is true, the leap to infer very specific things about the election cycle of the time was not justified.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They clearly make their case here. The first thing stated was "He was a registered democrat in 2006" then says, that he haddn't voted since then,
Whoa, whoa, stop with the lying. The article says they don't know whether he voted since then. It doesn't say he "haddn't"[sic] voted since then. The article was using various weasel words to soften the blow of revealing that Omar was a registered Democrat, full stop.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Informative)
The claim that Snopes was supposed to judge was whether the man was a registered Democrat, not if he had voted recently, and not if he committed the crime in the name of the Democratic party.
Well, by the standards you claimed, voter registration in 2006, President Donald J. Trump is also a registered Democrat.
What could possibly go wrong?
They admitted he was a registered Democrat, then lied and said "His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown."
This is called BIAS.
They told the exact truth, led with it in fact, and then pointed out that it was 10 years out of date and could easily have changed. This is called responsible reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the world divides nicely into two, the good, the bad, the left, the right, the democrats, the republicans, and so on.
And no, there's no hidden meaning in that sentence (cause the world doesn't actually divide that way).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't. The accusations are primarily from butt-hurt Republicans who got pissed off that so many of Trump's lies were called out as lies on the site. Their 'proof' that Snopes is making political statements is basically just a bunch of "technically, it wasn't a lie because..." followed by an opium fever dream of hatred against everything and everyone that doesn't support Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Fundamentally, what it comes down to is that these people have a vested interest in hiding from the truth and since Snopes is a site that is interested in unbiased, actual truth they will do anything to smear that site. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
It centralizes the effort and makes it less time-consuming to at least somewhat defend yourself against stupidity.
For a site run by a couple retardedly-biased hyperliberals, they keep their facts surprising-straight. A few disputes around the edges in tone from time to time, but nothing Hannity-like. Mostly they stay away from political opinion pieces, anyway, so they're restricted on how much political bullshit they can worm into their material.
Re:And Nothing of Value Was Lost... (Score:5, Informative)
Snopes is way overrated. Relying on Snopes as an authority for fact checking news is foolhardy.
I think you're missing the point. You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck [factcheck.org] and politifact [politifact.com] for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
Snopes often provides few, if any, additional details beyond what has already been published elsewhere.
Most of these idiotic internet rumors aren't debunked elsewhere.
Difficult to effectively fact-check CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc without field reporters to gather details on the ground and various quality sources. Simply regurgitating and comparing what other news sources have published, alone, isn't much of a fact-check.
This isn't the site to fact-check CNN or the NY Times. This is a site that debunks idiot email "memes" showing me a civil-war era photograph of soldiers that shot a pterodactyl.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck [factcheck.org] and politifact [politifact.com] for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff.
For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)
Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly
Re: (Score:2)
They always give detailed sources for their facts, so they're all right with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Their BS response to Cruz getting his PPO canceled (along with every other private insurance customer in the state of Texas).
Did not admit to fake news... (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Re: (Score:2)
Link to the claimed interview?
You need to prove that your 'facts' exist.
Asking for a citation is "nonsense"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed. Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Why do you people keep spewing that nonsense?
I'm not sure what "nonsense" you're referring to. I asked for a citation, telling me who said what, and asking for a link. Asking for a citation is "nonsense"?
They admitted to it in an interview. They admitted to it.
Yes: that is exactly what I asked for a citation for. Who "admitted it"? What interview? When? Where was it published?
Show me a link.
Re: Asking for a citation is "nonsense"? (Score:2)
In current discourse, asking for a citation is frowned upon. It is not limited to one set of political ideologies. No, I am not sure when the rhetoric changed. No, I don't know how to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
And no less than Vint Cerf came to his defense and agreed that he was fundamental in getting it the attention and funding that it deserved.
Citation needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why pretend that the couple that runs it didn't admit to a bias and to intentionally lying?
I'm not pretending anything. You are asserting a fact. I want a source for that fact.
Since you don't seem to be able to come up with a source, I assume you don't have one, and you're making it up.
If you do show a source, I'll look at it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, facts have a well-known liberal bias which only seems to become more pronounced over time! Those fact-checking sites don't even acknowledge alternative facts! Luckily there's conservapedia and infowars to bring some balance to the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Raquel Welch...first you'll have to move that damn cat.
The 'up the butt' answer was also actually given on the Newlywed Game.