Snopes caught lying and deceiving readers

[untermensche]

Go to DemocracyNow.

No corporate spin. No agenda. No ulterior motives.

Just the facts as best they can be ascertained.

Keyword: "corporate".

Doesn't mean there isn't other spin.

Like what?

You mean that spin that questions the crap capitalists try to claim?

 

[Patooka]

I wonder if RVonse learned this whilst on the way to Mike Lindell's cyber synposium. How was it, incidentally?

 

[Swammerdami]

I was very disappointed to read that Snopes was disseminating Fake News. I clicked on both of OP's links. The YouTube link was to an obvious right-wing idiot babbling uselessly, so I read the NY Times article instead. (This was rather difficult for me, as I am not a paid subscriber.) At NY Times I learned what I could have learned more easily by just reading further in the thread.

The "News" that Snopes was disseminating Fake News ... is itself Fake News!

What Snopes was doing was wrong, and it's good to see that Snopes is acting promptly to stop doing it. But what it wasn't doing was Fake News.

For me the thread has only one remaining point of interest: Will RVonse admit that his charge was false, or at best misleading?

Okay, you are complaining about Fake News while providing some yourself. This isn't about accuracy, this is about plagiarism of which doesn't impact the research and calls on any particular claim, as per what I noted above. Don't trust Snopes because it is Snopes, trust it when the citations check.

This Fake News was brought to you by RVonse.

There are many many other sources from google that bring this same message if you bother to look. I am only the messenger of this news which (in this case) does not fit your political narrative.

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

 

[Elixir]

But the point is this. They are politically biased just like facebook, google, twitter, and the rest.

So, rephrased, YOUR point is "everything that doesn't echo Cheato's lies is fake news, and the fact that everyone but Cheato agrees on something is evidence that it is false."

What is FB's bias, in your opinion? What is Google's bias in your opinion? What is Twitter's bias in your opinion?
You are obviously upset because nobody believes Trump but you and a few million racists, ignoramuses and idiots.

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

Really? You'll wonder why?
Be truthful... admit that you won't wonder why.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I was very disappointed to read that Snopes was disseminating Fake News. I clicked on both of OP's links. The YouTube link was to an obvious right-wing idiot babbling uselessly, so I read the NY Times article instead. (This was rather difficult for me, as I am not a paid subscriber.) At NY Times I learned what I could have learned more easily by just reading further in the thread.

The "News" that Snopes was disseminating Fake News ... is itself Fake News!

What Snopes was doing was wrong, and it's good to see that Snopes is acting promptly to stop doing it. But what it wasn't doing was Fake News.

For me the thread has only one remaining point of interest: Will RVonse admit that his charge was false, or at best misleading?

Okay, you are complaining about Fake News while providing some yourself. This isn't about accuracy, this is about plagiarism of which doesn't impact the research and calls on any particular claim, as per what I noted above. Don't trust Snopes because it is Snopes, trust it when the citations check.

This Fake News was brought to you by RVonse.

There are many many other sources from google that bring this same message if you bother to look. I am only the messenger of this news which (in this case) does not fit your political narrative.

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

I don't think that he'll pass the test! The belief in Trump has become a religion. Their positions can't be falsified. I'm willing to believe that perhaps Snopes has lied in their coverage. I don't know yet, because I haven't read the link and educated myself to it yet. But I'm open to changing my mind in anything if it dosn't hold up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was very disappointed to read that Snopes was disseminating Fake News. I clicked on both of OP's links. The YouTube link was to an obvious right-wing idiot babbling uselessly, so I read the NY Times article instead. (This was rather difficult for me, as I am not a paid subscriber.) At NY Times I learned what I could have learned more easily by just reading further in the thread.

The "News" that Snopes was disseminating Fake News ... is itself Fake News!

What Snopes was doing was wrong, and it's good to see that Snopes is acting promptly to stop doing it. But what it wasn't doing was Fake News.

For me the thread has only one remaining point of interest: Will RVonse admit that his charge was false, or at best misleading?



@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

I don't think that he'll pass the test! The belief in Trump has become a religion. Their positions can't be falsified. I'm willing to believe that perhaps Snopes has lied in their coverage. I don't know yet, because I haven't read the link and educated myself to it. But I'm open to changing my mind in anything if it dosn't hold up.

The article is about plagiarism of a half owner of the company. It has nothing to do with fact checking. Snopes says so.

 

[lpetrich]

RVonse should start citing funinspace, as he is the SMARTEST SMARTASS

View attachment 34923

I found the error in this "proof". Its big problem is the sign of the square root. The "proof" starts with it in step 3, and ends with it in step 8. It starts with the square root having a negative sign and ends with it having a positive sign, thus changing from -1/2 to +1/2. Doing so adds 1 to the overall expression, changing 4 to 5.

 

[RVonse]

I was very disappointed to read that Snopes was disseminating Fake News. I clicked on both of OP's links. The YouTube link was to an obvious right-wing idiot babbling uselessly

Right leaning? Really? He is a fervent Trump hater and way more left than right. It would be more than fair to call him left leaning politically but for the argument lets say he in the middle.

, so I read the NY Times article instead. (This was rather difficult for me, as I am not a paid subscriber.) At NY Times I learned what I could have learned more easily by just reading further in the thread.

The "News" that Snopes was disseminating Fake News ... is itself Fake News!

What Snopes was doing was wrong, and it's good to see that Snopes is acting promptly to stop doing it. But what it wasn't doing was Fake News.

For me the thread has only one remaining point of interest: Will RVonse admit that his charge was false, or at best misleading?

The title of my OP is that Snopes was caught lying and deceiving readers. And they were. You can apologize for them that it was only a small lie. And that plagiarism is somewhat better than outright lying to the school teacher. But in the final analysis this act was done by a founder for political reasons to steer a result which would not otherwise take place. I would not call that worth your apology.

Okay, you are complaining about Fake News while providing some yourself. This isn't about accuracy, this is about plagiarism of which doesn't impact the research and calls on any particular claim, as per what I noted above. Don't trust Snopes because it is Snopes, trust it when the citations check.

This Fake News was brought to you by RVonse.

There are many many other sources from google that bring this same message if you bother to look. I am only the messenger of this news which (in this case) does not fit your political narrative.

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

I'll admit to being stupid when you admit plagiarism practiced is not best practice for an advertised truth teller in journalism.

 

[laughing dog]

But in the final analysis this act was done by a founder for political reasons to steer a result which would not otherwise take place.

You have no evidence and no reason to believe (other than partisan ideology) that if the Snopes site had published the same content with attribution to the correct author, that the results would have been different. After all, facts are facts: Mr. Trump was and remains a blatant and unrepentant liar.

 

[Swammerdami]

Right leaning? Really? He is a fervent Trump hater and way more left than right.

I'd never heard of Jimmy Dore, but knew right away he was stupid; I clicked X long before discerning the details of his "political philosophy." Yet you apparently got your info from that YouTube. Hmmm.

I Googled Dore and found that he is a "comedian" who bought into a conspiracy theory promoted by FoxNews about Seth Rich's murder. "More left than right" has little meaning in today's U.S. politics. The divide is between truth-tellers and liars. It's pretty clear where this "Jimmy Dore" fits!

But in the final analysis this act was done by a founder for political reasons to steer a result which would not otherwise take place.

Wrong again. The founder did it to enhance his website's clicks and revenue. True, fact-checking generally favors the Democrats over Repugs and Trump-lickers. What does that tell you?

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

I'll admit to being stupid when you admit plagiarism practiced is not best practice for an advertised truth teller in journalism.

Then you had better admit to being stupid, because I made the admission you seek in the very post you quoted, with emphasis tags as shown:

What Snopes was doing was wrong

Plagiarism is wrong, but it is NOT the same as falsification. It isn't clear that you understand this. After all, you wrote:

From now on, I'm going to figure that the tabloids are more accurate than Snopes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Plagiarism doesn't mean the articles that were plagiarized were lies.

 

[Rhea]

I'll admit to being stupid when you admit plagiarism practiced is not best practice for an advertised truth teller in journalism.

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

Snopes, which has long presented itself as the internet’s premier fact-checking resource, has retracted 60 articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation found that the site’s co-founder plagiarized from news outlets as part of a strategy intended to scoop up web traffic.

“As you can imagine, our staff are gutted and appalled by this,” Vinny Green, the Snopes chief operating officer, said on Friday. He said the Snopes editorial team was conducting a review to understand just how many articles written by David Mikkelson, the site’s co-founder and chief executive, featured content plagiarized from other news sites.

As of Friday afternoon, the team had found 60, he said. By Friday morning, dozens of articles had been removed from the site, with pages that formerly featured those articles now showing the word “retracted” and an explanation that “some or all of its content was taken from other sources without proper attribution.” Ads have been removed from these articles, according to Mr. Green.

Mr. Mikkelson, who owns 50 percent of Snopes Media Group, will continue to be Snopes’s chief executive, but his ability to publish articles has been revoked, Mr. Green said.

further, they publicly condemn the behavior:

In an apology to existing staff members posted on Snopes on Friday, Mr. Green and Ms. Marchionni, who has a Ph.D. in journalism from the University of Missouri, called the BuzzFeed News investigation, which accuses their chief executive of intentionally taking credit for other people’s work to drive up web traffic, as “an example of dogged, watchdog journalism we cherish.”

Eight additional members of the editorial staff issued their own statement. “We strongly condemn these poor journalistic practices,” they said.

 

[RVonse]

I'll admit to being stupid when you admit plagiarism practiced is not best practice for an advertised truth teller in journalism.

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

Snopes, which has long presented itself as the internet’s premier fact-checking resource, has retracted 60 articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation found that the site’s co-founder plagiarized from news outlets as part of a strategy intended to scoop up web traffic.

“As you can imagine, our staff are gutted and appalled by this,” Vinny Green, the Snopes chief operating officer, said on Friday. He said the Snopes editorial team was conducting a review to understand just how many articles written by David Mikkelson, the site’s co-founder and chief executive, featured content plagiarized from other news sites.

As of Friday afternoon, the team had found 60, he said. By Friday morning, dozens of articles had been removed from the site, with pages that formerly featured those articles now showing the word “retracted” and an explanation that “some or all of its content was taken from other sources without proper attribution.” Ads have been removed from these articles, according to Mr. Green.

Mr. Mikkelson, who owns 50 percent of Snopes Media Group, will continue to be Snopes’s chief executive, but his ability to publish articles has been revoked, Mr. Green said.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. And not just 1 article but 60 articles mind you. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity yet advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want. I'll go elsewhere to seek accurate content.

 

[laughing dog]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity but advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want.

Too bad Trump supporters didn't and don't use the same standard when it comes to whatever emerges out of Mr. Trump's piehole.

Come on Rvonse, be honest, who is more likely to be honest about something - Snopes or Fox News or Mr. Trump?

 

[RVonse]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity but advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want.

Too bad Trump supporters didn't and don't use the same standard when it comes to whatever emerges out of Mr. Trump's piehole.

Come on Rvonse, be honest, who is more likely to be honest about something - Snopes or Fox News or Mr. Trump?

Snopes....but that still is not saying anything good.

 

[laughing dog]

Too bad Trump supporters didn't and don't use the same standard when it comes to whatever emerges out of Mr. Trump's piehole.

Come on Rvonse, be honest, who is more likely to be honest about something - Snopes or Fox News or Mr. Trump?

Snopes....but that still is not saying anything good.

True, that standard is pretty low.

 

[Rhea]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch.

You are ignoring the part where the Snopes staff asked the same question and went through all the articles to find out. They are turning them up as they find them.

This is admirable.

And not just 1 article but 60 articles mind you. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity yet advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want. I'll go elsewhere to seek accurate content.

This is an organization advertising integrity who found out someone high up had a problem, they exposed it and they looked further to root it all out.

You can go back to youtube, if you want, but I will feel better about an organization who doesn't hide their head in the sand, but stands up and corrects it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, to sum up - Snopes co-owner posted something without attribute, it was brought to their attention, and they banned him and removed the articles and wrote an apology?

That's where we are with this, right? Feels like a very good outcome. Now we know they mean business about integrity, even if it means cleaning their own house.

Well, that's great. Thanks for the articles shoring up their reliability, RVonse. You must be very relieved and comfortable using them as a source going forward, knowing they have this level of integrity and self-reflection.

It only makes me wonder how many articles BuzzFeed did not catch. And not just 1 article but 60 articles mind you. This supposed organization with one of its founders proven without integrity yet advertising integrity as its final product.

You and others can believe them if you want. I'll go elsewhere to seek accurate content.

That is “Original” content.

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, plagarism has turned into a big yawn in recent years. We voted the most famous plagarist in recent memory into the Oval Office, so, yeah...meh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right leaning? Really? He is a fervent Trump hater and way more left than right. It would be more than fair to call him left leaning politically but for the argument lets say he in the middle. The title of my OP is that Snopes was caught lying and deceiving readers. And they were. You can apologize for them that it was only a small lie. And that plagiarism is somewhat better than outright lying to the school teacher. But in the final analysis this act was done by a founder for political reasons to steer a result which would not otherwise take place. I would not call that worth your apology.

Okay, you are complaining about Fake News while providing some yourself. This isn't about accuracy, this is about plagiarism of which doesn't impact the research and calls on any particular claim, as per what I noted above. Don't trust Snopes because it is Snopes, trust it when the citations check.

This Fake News was brought to you by RVonse.

There are many many other sources from google that bring this same message if you bother to look. I am only the messenger of this news which (in this case) does not fit your political narrative.

@ RVonse— This is a test. Will you be able to admit unequivocally that you were yourself misled by a Fake News story about Snopes? Do so and I will applaud. Fail to do so, and I will wonder why. Stubbornness? Stupidity? Both?

I'll admit to being stupid when you admit plagiarism practiced is not best practice for an advertised truth teller in journalism.

So you are doubling down on fake news.