• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Snopes caught lying and deceiving readers

Wikipedia does have bias problems but it's with what they choose to include, not with the facts presented.

Really? From what I've seen and heard from them, they constantly reach out for more inclusions. It would kinda defeat the purpose if they were to do the opposite.
But the salient point bearing on RVonse's inability to find any confidence in anything, is that Wikipedia's material is extensively footnoted, sources are identified and often linked, and points of possible contention are often notated with requests for more information. I find Wiki extremely valuable in making quick determinations as to whether a question is worth pursuing. As far as factual matters, it's only good for simple facts of the variety that SIRI or ALEXA could answer.

Or in other words, Wikipedia makes a great hub for referential cross-linking.

It can be a lot more; as an investigative tool it can lead to obscure but relevant documents that would otherwise be hard to find. Even as an entertainment portal, it’s an impressive edifice.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wxk8SX8z14

On many of the forums I frequent, Snopes was/is always the fact checking bible that everyone runs to settle an argument. But Snopes themselves are a proven dishonest lying organization to begin with.

POTUS Trump was actually right when he regularly complained about much of today's fake news. He just should have cautioned us about the fake fact checkers like Snopes as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wxk8SX8z14
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html

On many of the forums I frequent, Snopes was/is always the fact checking bible that everyone runs to settle an argument. But Snopes themselves are a proven dishonest lying organization to begin with. From now on, I'm going to figure that the tabloids are more accurate than Snopes. With Facebook and Google running a close 2nd and 3rd on impartiality.

IMHO there is probably NO source of valid news or fact checking anymore. Consider everything a lie or compromised in some political way. The best you can do is to expose yourself to as many different sources of material and figure that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That is what today's journalism is worth to myself.

Good grief I watched the first video, he made no case that snopes published anything false. He made a lot of ad hominem attacks, and the examples he used were not false. His biggest claim is that they must be liars because they wouldn't come on his show, as if that was an admission of guilt - after he says in the video he's a pot head who works out of his garage.

Yeah Jimmy, we'll be right over
 
Jimmy Dore is a bombastic hyperactive moron.

But he rails against the left.

Calls AOC a sell out standing in the way of healthcare.

People on the right like to hear stuff like that even if it is mindless nonsense.
 
I think that the problem [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; is having is that reality tends to have a strong liberal bent.
Tom
It's the other way around; The US political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that only its far left wing (which is right of centre on a world scale) remains in any way connected to reality.

US conservatives have never had a solid grounding in reality, and have always preferred mythical constructs such as Christ, freedom, and self-reliance as alternatives to fact, despite none of these having one iota of evidence for having ever existed in human history.
That's not 'other way 'round.' More 'part and parcel.'

Reality offends the Right, exactly because it matches their preferred myths less and less as time passes.
Between 24-hour news and the internet, American exceptionalism, White superiority, God's grace, manifest destiny, all tend to wilt in the spotlight, the bruises stark and spreading like on last week's bananas.

Thus, they burrow into their own reality and pull the hole in after them, waving their Wer'e#1 gloves and Trump flags at each other in the dark, telling each other they still have teh specials.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wxk8SX8z14

On many of the forums I frequent, Snopes was/is always the fact checking bible that everyone runs to settle an argument. But Snopes themselves are a proven dishonest lying organization to begin with.

POTUS Trump was actually right when he regularly complained about much of today's fake news. He just should have cautioned us about the fake fact checkers like Snopes as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wxk8SX8z14
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html

On many of the forums I frequent, Snopes was/is always the fact checking bible that everyone runs to settle an argument. But Snopes themselves are a proven dishonest lying organization to begin with. From now on, I'm going to figure that the tabloids are more accurate than Snopes. With Facebook and Google running a close 2nd and 3rd on impartiality.

IMHO there is probably NO source of valid news or fact checking anymore. Consider everything a lie or compromised in some political way. The best you can do is to expose yourself to as many different sources of material and figure that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That is what today's journalism is worth to myself.

What's your evidence for the lies? No, I'm not going to watch youtube videos. Do you have blog posts or something easier to digest?
 
Wikipedia does have bias problems but it's with what they choose to include, not with the facts presented.

Really? From what I've seen and heard from them, they constantly reach out for more inclusions. It would kinda defeat the purpose if they were to do the opposite.
But the salient point bearing on RVonse's inability to find any confidence in anything, is that Wikipedia's material is extensively footnoted, sources are identified and often linked, and points of possible contention are often notated with requests for more information. I find Wiki extremely valuable in making quick determinations as to whether a question is worth pursuing. As far as factual matters, it's only good for simple facts of the variety that SIRI or ALEXA could answer.

Unless those inclusions go against their biases.

I put a link behind a couple of words normally used to obscure the intent--absolutely no changes to the text. Promptly reverted.
 
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.

Okay, yeah, Melania did sort of get voted in.
 
Jimmy Dore is a bombastic hyperactive moron.

But he rails against the left.

Calls AOC a sell out standing in the way of healthcare.

People on the right like to hear stuff like that even if it is mindless nonsense.

Yeah, anyone who willingly goes on to Tucker Carlson's show to dump on AOC is not a leftist and more of a grifting cunt. Jimmy Dore is just a shittier version of Dave Rubin or Candace Owens; someone who started their career hanging shit on Trump and then realising there is more money being a shill.

You know, the very thing RVonse accuses "mainstream media" of doing.
 
Jimmy Dore is a bombastic hyperactive moron.

But he rails against the left.

Calls AOC a sell out standing in the way of healthcare.

People on the right like to hear stuff like that even if it is mindless nonsense.
Yeah, anyone who willingly goes on to Tucker Carlson's show to dump on AOC is not a leftist and more of a grifting cunt. Jimmy Dore is just a shittier version of Dave Rubin or Candace Owens; someone who started their career hanging shit on Trump and then realising there is more money being a shill.

 The Young Turks - it was founded as a radio show in 2002 by Cenk Uygur, with Ana Kasparian joining in 2008. Several other people have been regulars or semiregulars. John Iadarola joined in 2012, and he now has his own show, "The Damage Report". It went on the Internet as a YouTube channel in 2006.

As to  Dave Rubin, his Rubin Report was on TYT in 2013-15.

As to  Jimmy Dore, he was on TYT in 2009–2019.

Candace Owens was never anywhere close to TYT, however.
 
Snopes sounds like one of those websites I immediately click the X for Exit on.
 
Jimmy Dore is a bombastic hyperactive moron.

But he rails against the left.

Calls AOC a sell out standing in the way of healthcare.

People on the right like to hear stuff like that even if it is mindless nonsense.
Yeah, anyone who willingly goes on to Tucker Carlson's show to dump on AOC is not a leftist and more of a grifting cunt. Jimmy Dore is just a shittier version of Dave Rubin or Candace Owens; someone who started their career hanging shit on Trump and then realising there is more money being a shill.

 The Young Turks - it was founded as a radio show in 2002 by Cenk Uygur, with Ana Kasparian joining in 2008. Several other people have been regulars or semiregulars. John Iadarola joined in 2012, and he now has his own show, "The Damage Report". It went on the Internet as a YouTube channel in 2006.

As to  Dave Rubin, his Rubin Report was on TYT in 2013-15.

As to  Jimmy Dore, he was on TYT in 2009–2019.

Candace Owens was never anywhere close to TYT, however.

Agreed. And also not the point I was making. Candace Owens started off bashing Trump and then did one hell of a backflip once she discovered being astroturfed was far more lucrative. No different than Jimmy Dore or Dave Rubin. I give it another 6 months until we see Dore do a PragerU video.
 
Snopes sounds like one of those websites I immediately click the X for Exit on.

Why? Does debunking misinformation offend you in some way? Snopes actually has one of the best track records for dispelling myths and lies, regardless of what the right wing authoritarian bubble claims. (And that should tell you something - right wing authoritarians do NOT like fact checking!)
 
Snopes does not subscribe to Hillary C being a murderer, they fact check Trump (as they do Biden, Obama) and that rarely works in Trump's favor, and they do not support conspiracy theories that have no evidence. Their whole business model relies on them being impartial and thorough.

The problem is, to a certain segment of the population, reality appears partisan, so a site like snopes appears biased. It's very probable that they may get some things wrong on occasion, but I highly doubt it's purposeful. More likely they are working with the best info available to them at the time of posting.
 
Snopes does not subscribe to Hillary C being a murderer, they fact check Trump (as they do Biden, Obama) and that rarely works in Trump's favor, and they do not support conspiracy theories that have no evidence. Their whole business model relies on them being impartial and thorough.

The problem is, to a certain segment of the population, reality appears partisan, so a site like snopes appears biased. It's very probable that they may get some things wrong on occasion, but I highly doubt it's purposeful. More likely they are working with the best info available to them at the time of posting.

Agreed. It has been raised that their bias is reflected in the content selection, not in the content itself. I think that’s right too, but I believe that the selective bias arises from the paucity of facts that are damning to the left, and the embarrassment of riches offered up by the right - mountains of falsehoods, fallacies and half truths.
Y’all on the right need to try harder if you want honest reporting/fact checking to reflect well on the right.
 
Snopes sounds like one of those websites I immediately click the X for Exit on.

Why? Does debunking misinformation offend you in some way? Snopes actually has one of the best track records for dispelling myths and lies, regardless of what the right wing authoritarian bubble claims. (And that should tell you something - right wing authoritarians do NOT like fact checking!)

This. The only beefs I've had with Snopes is a bit too much trust of official records. Sorry, but when the claim is that the authorities are ignoring something the official data is not a rebuttal.
 
Back
Top Bottom