Snopes: the fact checker doesn't wish to be fact checked.

Big Horn

Big Horn

Member
Location
Cody, Wyoming
The Daily Mail has assembled a rather smelly report of behavior at Snopes, both in their fact checking operation and in the antics of at least one of the co-founders. Forbes reported on Snopes's likely veracity almost a year earlier because of another Daily Mail article which I do not have at hand.

Forbes has a well respected organization; they've been around for years serving the business and investment community. The articles which follow are not political. The Daily Mail article describes events which some readers may not believe is appropriate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#60bfffeb227f

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html
 

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own
Click to expand...

A wise decision, no doubt their legal dept. insist on this disclaimer.

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper
Click to expand...

Tabloid, O.K., that gives some perspective on the veracity of the article.
 

I don't know, as far as I can see, the articles don't prove that Snopes is fraudulent and not to be trusted. It just points out that its founder has been through an ugly divorce. So what?
 
Sunny said:
I don't know, as far as I can see, the articles don't prove that Snopes is fraudulent and not to be trusted. It just points out that its founder has been through an ugly divorce. So what?
Click to expand...
Reread the Forbes article. It raises some questions of credibility.

Any business or other organization that is treated as an unquestioned paragon of truth is potentially dangerous. It can do its utmost to provide accurate information or, the other hand, it can deprave factual accounts. Snopes represents itself as an infallible guard. Many accept them as such without reservation. That's rather scary.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will guard the guards themselves?
 
Last edited:
In reading the Forbes/Daily Mail link, it is pretty clear that the agenda is political in nature,

Kudos to you for not getting reprimanded for posting such material.
 
Big Horn said:
You can't offer a shred of evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing any "claim" to offer evidence for, in AZjim's post.


But I agree with your original post- quote:
The Daily Mail has assembled a rather smelly report of behavior at Snopes
Click to expand...


So far, that's all that report is- smelly. More like a hatchet job with an philosophical axe to grind.
 
neotheone said:
I'm not seeing any "claim" to offer evidence for, in AZjim's post.


But I agree with your original post- quote:


So far, that's all that report is- smelly. More like a hatchet job with an philosophical axe to grind.
Click to expand...

QFT

If Facebook was only using Snopes to identify Fake News being disseminated on its platform, then there might be some validity in the Daily Mail report. As it is, the report does seem to be a hatchet job on Snopes based on the personal life of its principals.

I see no reaction to FactCheck.org which is another organisation that Facebook is using. Presumably FC is using more than these two?
 
I've used Snopes a lot in the past and will continue doing so. Many times, I've gotten those alarmist emails from my more gullible friends, warning of some (gasp!) shocking event, often telling me to pass it along to ten more people. When I've looked them up on Snopes, I invariably found them, with all the necessary debunking information, which I sent to the friend who had written to me.

Those fake news items and urban legends seemed to be more prevalent a few years ago. At least, I don't get them as often, maybe partially thanks to Snopes. People have finally learned to look up the wilder stories before passing them along.
 
I check snopes and trust them to a degree but I can predict what they will say almost all of the time.

if the story is conservative based it will say "False" :)

sometimes they'll say mostly false or true when they have no other choice.

It is slightly liberal biased but I still rely on it and will use it.
 
Some years ago a lot of American nonsense was being circulated in Australia with a few minor changes to make it look like it referred to something in Australia.

Most were urban legends, some were just sentimental stories and a lot were political jokes or slander against political leaders. I found Snopes useful because I was able to identify the earliest version and was able to demonstrate to my Australian friends that they were being manipulated.

One of the sentimental stories about a soldier had its origin in the Korean war. An oldie but a goodie, as it were. Unfortunately, it was not true.

Often, when I pointed out the truth to my online friends I received the response, "Well, if it is not true, it should be", but over time I noticed that others began to do their own fact checking. We are a lot less gullible these days thanks to the fact checkers like Snopes.
 
Sunny said:
I don't know, as far as I can see, the articles don't prove that Snopes is fraudulent and not to be trusted. It just points out that its founder has been through an ugly divorce. So what?
Click to expand...

That's my take on it too. As for the ugly divorce, may he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I will continue to use Snopes as my general fact-checker. I also enjoy WaPo's Pinocchio ratings but that's more about debunking what politicians are saying now.
 
I’ve never heard of snopes ...I guess I should read some of the posts to get an idea of who or what they are :shrug::shrug:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top