100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Liberal Snopes not a credible source | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Snooping On Snopes
'There has been much speculation about the validity of information provided by self-proclaimed "urban legend" debunkers Snopes and FactCheck. I decided to take a closer look. http://www.snopes.com/ David and Barbara Mikkelson are the owners of Snopes and essentially provide much of their own research from their home in California's lush San Fernando Valley. About 2 hours of searching Snopes' site on political issues reveals that, their articles reflect a disturbingly left tilt, while frequently distorting or eliminating contradictory information. For example, Snopes has a puzzling article on "Obama's 50 Lies." The authors proceed to list 50 innocuous and rather obscure charges, none of which I have ever heard. They then set about debunking most of the benign non-issues. But, try to fact find something relevant such as Mr. Obama's broken promise of healthcare transparency and you will get, "Sorry, no matches were found." Mr. Obama and those in his adminstration made several references to his desire to eliminate both employer insurance and private insurers. If true, these are serious agenda items with massive consequences. After numerous searches, Snopes repeatedly responded with "Sorry, no matches." Yet, here is a montage of the actual comments on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9tWjsbfH7k The Mikkelson's, it turns out, are big Obama supporters and in favor of much of his tranformational agenda. Google this and see what you find on the issue. Obama's broken promise of healthcare transparency youtube |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humm just because it is on youtube I surely would not think it was the truth either....
 Anyone can post what ever they want to on youtube! Myself the only thing I have ever used Snopes for are the urban legend's & those fake stories that are out there.. I would never use that site for Political issues....just saying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You left off your source. Is it credible?
http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/03/snopes_factchec.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youtube vids are producing the sounds that come out of the mouths of the videoed.
Barry is a liar and Snopes backs him up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I looked it up on snopes and it says it is a hoax!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youtube vids are producing the sounds that come out of the mouths of the videoed. Barry is a liar and Snopes backs him up. Can you provide a non-biased source to back up what you say about snopes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youtube vids are producing the sounds that come out of the mouths of the videoed. Barry is a liar and Snopes backs him up. Can you provide a non-biased source to back up what you say about snopes? About as easily as you can provide non-biased proof snopes is credible and unbiased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willing, the purpose of your thread was to shoot down snopes. I would think you'd want to provide a non-biased, credible source to back that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willing, the purpose of your thread was to shoot down snopes. I would think you'd want to provide a non-biased, credible source to back that up. They made the claim and I agree. Prove snopes is unbiased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your are saying that snopes is an "incredible source"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's all this "Don't trust YouTube" and "Provide a non-biased source" crap?
If the video on YouTube is Barack Obama saying something (Like when he promised that the Healthcare law would be transparent or when he promised to raise energy prices), why is there doubt? You want the context? Oh, that's easy. Just google whatever you think is questionable and you should be able to find the entire speech. As for a "non-biased source", the article describes the process the author used to come to his or her conclusions. Why not follow the same process and come to your own conclusion? Why do people need to be spoon fed facts. "I don't want to believe that and I'm too lazy to see for myself, so I'll just close my eyes"? What is that crap? Seriously? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willing, the purpose of your thread was to shoot down snopes. I would think you'd want to provide a non-biased, credible source to back that up. They made the claim and I agree. Prove snopes is unbiased. You keep trying to turn this around for some reason. The purpose of your thread was to prove that snopes is not credible. Though, the source you used (and didn't provide in your OP) was mommylife.net, which definitely leans right. I would think that you'd provide an un-biased, credible source to back up what you say. If you can't, that's fine, but you created the thread so don't rely on others to provide proof for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snooping On Snopes 'There has been much speculation about the validity of information provided by self-proclaimed "urban legend" debunkers Snopes and FactCheck. I decided to take a closer look. http://www.snopes.com/ David and Barbara Mikkelson are the owners of Snopes and essentially provide much of their own research from their home in California's lush San Fernando Valley. About 2 hours of searching Snopes' site on political issues reveals that, their articles reflect a disturbingly left tilt, while frequently distorting or eliminating contradictory information. For example, Snopes has a puzzling article on "Obama's 50 Lies." The authors proceed to list 50 innocuous and rather obscure charges, none of which I have ever heard. They then set about debunking most of the benign non-issues. But, try to fact find something relevant such as Mr. Obama's broken promise of healthcare transparency and you will get, "Sorry, no matches were found." Mr. Obama and those in his adminstration made several references to his desire to eliminate both employer insurance and private insurers. If true, these are serious agenda items with massive consequences. After numerous searches, Snopes repeatedly responded with "Sorry, no matches." Yet, here is a montage of the actual comments on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9tWjsbfH7k The Mikkelson's, it turns out, are big Obama supporters and in favor of much of his tranformational agenda. Google this and see what you find on the issue. Obama's broken promise of healthcare transparency youtube If Snopes didn't offer 500 citations in their presentations I would be inclined to believe this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
singmesweet
on
Tue 06/26/12 09:11 AM
|
|
Well, that's the thing. Snopes does cite their sources, allowing you to go search on your own to see if they've been correct. It would be different if they just posted things without a source (such as the OP
 ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's the thing. Snopes does cite their sources, allowing you to go search on your own to see if they've been correct. It would be different if they just posted things without a source (such as the OP ). The article that the OP posted isn't about how their articles are biased, it's about the fact that Snopes does not fact check anything that is negative about Obama and true. So if a Republican says something negative that isn't true about Obama, they bust it, if a Republican says something negative about Obama that is true, they ignore it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 06/26/12 09:39 AM
|
|
Well, that's the thing. Snopes does cite their sources, allowing you to go search on your own to see if they've been correct. It would be different if they just posted things without a source (such as the OP ). The article that the OP posted isn't about how their articles are biased, it's about the fact that Snopes does not fact check anything that is negative about Obama and true. So if a Republican says something negative that isn't true about Obama, they bust it, if a Republican says something negative about Obama that is true, they ignore it. the op also suggests that the 50 lies article was something they had never heard about even though a search on most any engine would bring up the list a hundred fold like any media, no one source is gonna cover EVERY occasion or event that happens in the world, political or otherwise, I dont really care what the source mostly covers, if what they choose to cover is documented and true thats a credible source and if they arent covering what I am trying to find, thats what the internet and OTHER factchecking sources are for,,, if covering the things I think they should cover was required for a source to be 'credible', there probably couldnt be found ONE source that fit the criteria most sources are gonna cover those things their READERS or VIEWERS are interested in seeing, this can make their coverage misleading if you are the type who believes the real world is directly mirrored by the media but it doesnt make them not credible,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I looked it up on snopes and it says it is a hoax! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Factcheck.org debunked the claim against Snopes.com that is featured in the OP.
As it turns out, the operators of Snopes.com are politically neutral, which means that people with Obama Derangement Syndrome are going to accuse Snopes of liberal bias because Snopes doesn't support anti-Obama stories that are false. Back when George W. Bush was President of the USA, Snopes was accused of conservative bias because the website didn't support anti-Bush stories that were false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Factcheck.org debunked the claim against Snopes.com that is featured in the OP. As it turns out, the operators of Snopes.com are politically neutral, which means that people with Obama Derangement Syndrome are going to accuse Snopes of liberal bias because Snopes doesn't support anti-Obama stories that are false. Back when George W. Bush was President of the USA, Snopes was accused of conservative bias because the website didn't support anti-Bush stories that were false. And we'll take their word for it, because all they have riding on it is their business. If they came right out and admitted to bias, they would lose a large chunk of their visits per month. And Factcheck is just as left leaning, so why would it surprise anyone that they defend Snopes? I will still use Snopes, I just know that they won't fact check anything that will hurt democrats. It doesn't matter, because most of the worst stuff they do is done in print or on video. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Factcheck.org debunked the claim against Snopes.com that is featured in the OP. As it turns out, the operators of Snopes.com are politically neutral, which means that people with Obama Derangement Syndrome are going to accuse Snopes of liberal bias because Snopes doesn't support anti-Obama stories that are false. Back when George W. Bush was President of the USA, Snopes was accused of conservative bias because the website didn't support anti-Bush stories that were false. And we'll take their word for it, because all they have riding on it is their business. If they came right out and admitted to bias, they would lose a large chunk of their visits per month. And Factcheck is just as left leaning, so why would it surprise anyone that they defend Snopes? I will still use Snopes, I just know that they won't fact check anything that will hurt democrats. It doesn't matter, because most of the worst stuff they do is done in print or on video. Does the expression begging the question mean anything to you? How about ad hominem? |
|
|
|
|
