Is Snopes polically biased?

[SonOfLaertes]

In a past life, I worked in Network Administration for my current employer. As E-mail was within my realm of responsibilities, I quickly developed a boiling hatred of chain mail, and all those who forward chain-mail for fun and "profit".

Snopes.com was my go-to source to try and debunk most chain mails. At the time (some years ago) I did some research and determined that Snopes was, in general, reliable and a-political. I used Snopes as a way to try to get my chain-mail sending friends to think before they click.

I was forwarded an e-mail today from one of my (very conservative) friends. He was crowing about the content, which painted Snopes in a very unfavorable light (biased to liberal opinions). Many of you have probably already received this e-mail.

I need some help here. Is Snopes biased? All the research I have done seems to indicate that they do the best they can, and while not infallible, they are a good starting place to begin a fact-finding search.

Opinions? What I am looking for in particular is statements or opinions on Snopes from reliable, well-known Conservatives. I have found many sites giving Snopes good grades but none of them are undeniably "right"-leaning.

[Praktik]

What does Snopes say about the anti-snopes forward?

[SonOfLaertes]

What does Snopes say about the anti-snopes forward?
I don't believe they have responded to it yet; at least a Snopes search of some key phrases from the e-mail such as "Snopes--Eye Opener" didn't turn up any hits. I've concentrated on trying to find opinion from other sites, however.

[themusicteacher]

If by "is Snopes liberally biased because they reveal the facts not convenient ideological spin" then, yes, it is liberally biased.

[JCL]

I think the real issue is that reality has a liberal bias

[SonOfLaertes]

Factcheck.org has basically debunked the e-mail but I don't think their opinion would be convincing to the doubters -

http://www .factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

[Kestrel]

You could point out that Snopes doesn't have to be accepted on authority. The page debunking each legend gives the logic behind the debunking, the evidence supporting the debunking and sources for the evidence.

There are however people that don't respond to evidence and logic. Some dogmatic conservatives and liberals are simply authoritarian followers. Truth is defined as whatever their leaders say is true, even if it doesn't make sense.

[LibraryLady]

This might be a better link. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/)

[leftysergeant]

I think the real issue is that reality has a liberal bias


Bingo!

[MattusMaximus]

As has been stated already, the non-partisan folks at FactCheck.org have already thoroughly debunked (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/) the email alleging liberal bias from Snopes. Of course, to someone who lives down the rabbit-hole of extreme rightwing ideology, this will mean nothing except that perhaps FactCheck.org is also part of said liberal conspiracy :rolleyes:

[SonOfLaertes]

As has been stated already, the non-partisan folks at FactCheck.org have already thoroughly debunked (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/) the email alleging liberal bias from Snopes. Of course, to someone who lives down the rabbit-hole of extreme rightwing ideology, this will mean nothing except that perhaps FactCheck.org is also part of said liberal conspiracy :rolleyes:

Exactly. That is why I'm searching for statements from somebody/some organization that the wing-nuts would have a hard time dismissing.

I'm hoping somebody remembers a source that would fit the bill.

[casebro]

I'd thought it was common knowledge the Barbara Snopes is liberal. Something like contributions to the democratic party, plus a bit of a slant to just a few articles. Things like participant numbers in one of the marches in D.C. ? Seems I remember some hoo-hoo a couple years back.

But most of their articles deal with historical facts. Not much room for political bias.

But every time I visit, I get a pop-under. So I keep my visits to the minimum.

[Praktik]

factcheck.org found no contributions to either party.

the husband was a registered republican in 2000

[BibleWelt]

I haven't seen any "liberal bias" there. The Snopes article "Hanoi'd with Jane" is pretty harsh - one of the more overtly damning pieces I can recall having read there (scare quotes surrounding the words "apologized" and "apology", for example). That's the only biased Snopes article I know of. That article ticked off a couple of my more liberal friends, who then claimed Snopes had a conservative bias...

[GStan]

<snip>

Opinions? What I am looking for in particular is statements or opinions on Snopes from reliable, well-known Conservatives. I have found many sites giving Snopes good grades but none of them are undeniably "right"-leaning.

I consider myself to be undeniably right-leaning, and I love Snopes. I've been visiting their site for years and have never noticed any kind of liberal bias. I know you're looking for the opinion of well-known conservatives. Sorry, I'm working on it. ;)

I'm actually very famous; but not very many people know it yet.*

*not plagiarizing, just can't remember where I heard that line.

[SonOfLaertes]

I'd thought it was common knowledge the Barbara Snopes is liberal. Something like contributions to the democratic party, plus a bit of a slant to just a few articles. Things like participant numbers in one of the marches in D.C. ? Seems I remember some hoo-hoo a couple years back.

But most of their articles deal with historical facts. Not much room for political bias.

But every time I visit, I get a pop-under. So I keep my visits to the minimum.

Actually, a lot of their articles debunk widely circulated e-mails, many of which are political in nature. Debunking chain mail is, for me, Snopes' most valuable asset, and I would hate to lose this resource, politics aside.

Mikkelson may be a Democrat, but her husband was a Republican until 2000, at which point he became an independent, which sounds suspiciously like my own recent history.

[Travis]

Snopes has always come across as apolitical to me. I think the fact that Snopes has been shooting down the "ACLU to outlaw religion" and "Obama is evil" e-mails has some people ticked off and has created this attempted smear campaign.

[mortimer]

I think I've seen an article or two there that may have been slightly biased towards the left (such as something directed against a liberal or Democrat being marked "False", when, after reading the evidence, I would put squarely in the "Undetermined" category). I'll see if I can find an example. But overall, I'd say Snopes is unbiased, useful, and often entertaining.

[SonOfLaertes]

I consider myself to be undeniably right-leaning, and I love Snopes. I've been visiting their site for years and have never noticed any kind of liberal bias. I know you're looking for the opinion of well-known conservatives. Sorry, I'm working on it. ;)

I'm actually very famous; but not very many people know it yet.*

*not plagiarizing, just can't remember where I heard that line.

Thanks for your help and opinoion, famous or not.

[LibraryLady]

Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and cannot register as a voter for either party in the U.S., nor can she contribute money to either party or campaigns.

[Brainster]

I did think it was noteworthy that Snopes never updated (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp) their page on John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans after July 30, 2004 (the Swift Boat ads started in August of 2004). They also never touched Kerry's false claim that he took his Swift Boat into Cambodia.

[Praktik]

Ya they should definitely have added in a bit about anti-NAU turned birther dirtbag Jerome Corsi - a conservative bias perhaps??

[SonOfLaertes]

Snopes has always come across as apolitical to me. I think the fact that Snopes has been shooting down the "ACLU to outlaw religion" and "Obama is evil" e-mails has some people ticked off and has created this attempted smear campaign.

"ACLU to outlaw religion" is a perfect example - it's one of the e-mails I used Snopes to debunk, after the aforementioned friend had sent it out to about 75 people.

As an independent and a skeptic, it just bugs me when these obviously "purpose-crafted" e-mails make the rounds and are accepted at face value by people eager for validation of their viewpoint.

I de-bunked one recently which purported to give advice on heart attack prevention. This e-maill included quotes and official looking images and "press releases" from Johns Hopkins University. Snopes pointed me toward a page on John Hopkins official web site, which took pains to distance itself from the e-mail.

I know I should just give up and let everyone believe whatever they want, but the e-mail mentioned above looked official and gave bad health advice.

[Brainster]

Ya they should definitely have added in a bit about anti-NAU turned birther dirtbag Jerome Corsi - a conservative bias perhaps??

Care to guess who was responsible for this story (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/)?

Former forum member Boloboffin and I collaborated on that one.

:D

[MattusMaximus]

Exactly. That is why I'm searching for statements from somebody/some organization that the wing-nuts would have a hard time dismissing.

I'm hoping somebody remembers a source that would fit the bill.

The real wingnuts, probably the types behind this smear campaign, won't be convinced by anything or anyone that doesn't confirm their bias.

[MattusMaximus]

Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and cannot register as a voter for either party in the U.S., nor can she contribute money to either party or campaigns.

EVIDENCE OF THE LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!11! :jaw-dropp

;)

[gtc]

I'm on the right and I've read many of Snopes articles over the years. I've sometimes seen a liberal perspective coming through in Barbara's articles but I've never seen it bias their conclusions.

I can't remember which articles, sorry.

[Kestrel]

I did think it was noteworthy that Snopes never updated (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp) their page on John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans after July 30, 2004 (the Swift Boat ads started in August of 2004).

Pages on Snopes are normally in response to specific items that show up in our email or circulate as urban legends. Not claims that appear in political ads. Dig around on Snopes and you will find many other pages dealing with John Kerry.

[SonOfLaertes]

I'm on the right and I've read many of Snopes articles over the years. I've sometimes seen a liberal perspective coming through in Barbara's articles but I've never seen it bias their conclusions.

I can't remember which articles, sorry.

Understood. I've read through a number of politically based articles today, and I can see where someone might feel that Barbara has an understated liberal perpective; however it seems clear that there is no bias where firm conclusions have been drawn.

It's easy to find some right-wing forums where participants believe there's an anti-conservative bias to Snopes, but all of the arguments given so far have been week and biased in their own right(no pun intended).

Still can't find opinion from the "visible" right for or against Snopes. It occurs to me that this in and of itself answers my question. It would seem to me that if Snopes had a liberal agenda the Limbaughs of the world would be all over it.

That doesn't help me defend Snope's reputation to my chain-mail sending friends, unfotrtunately.

[Grimes]

The only bias Snopes has is toward ad revenue. I stopped visiting that site when I would get hit with at least 3 pop-ups, pop-unders and redirects on every page.

But on-topic, why do you care so much about proving this to your friends? They obviously won't believe it no matter who it comes from.

[SonOfLaertes]

The only bias Snopes has is toward ad revenue. I stopped visiting that site when I would get hit with at least 3 pop-ups, pop-unders and redirects on every page.

But on-topic, why do you care so much about proving this to your friends? They obviously won't believe it no matter who it comes from.

A). To cut down on the spread of chain-mail, as I hope that people would get in the habit of fact checking before spreading lies, rumors, and money-making schemes. Remember that many of these chain-mails are simply vehicles for the originator to collect valid e-mail addresses, to spam the collected recipients or to spread spyware. You would understand if you worked in IT.
Most of the chain-mail I get is from friends and co-workers.

Not to mention that this forum is in general committed to stopping the spread of lies, rumors and money-making schemes.

B). To save time in conversations where these e-mails are used as "facts" to support one contention or the other. This becomes annoying to the extreme when one hears the same misconceptions repeated ad infinitum.

C). My friends and I argue about various things. Its fun. If somebody brings up what they think is a good point, and I disagree with their conclusion, I attempt to refute it.

D). Snopes is a handy and time-saving tool to accomplish all of the above. If it's biased, I want to know that: I will stop relying on it. If it's generally fair-minded, I want to be able to prove that so that I can continue to use it.

My friends are reasonably intelligent people. If a conservative friend were shown a video with, say, Bill O'Reilly using Snopes as a reference source, I would have ammunition to refute some anti-Snopes rebuttals.

[SonOfLaertes]

The only bias Snopes has is toward ad revenue. I stopped visiting that site when I would get hit with at least 3 pop-ups, pop-unders and redirects on every page.
But on-topic, why do you care so much about proving this to your friends? They obviously won't believe it no matter who it comes from.

Off-topic, you need to upgrade your browser/settings/security. I've been browsing Snopes all day and have experienced none of the above. On-page ads, certainly, but I won't begrudge any site that right. [bolding mine]

[varwoche]

I did think it was noteworthy that Snopes never updated (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp) their page on John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans after July 30, 2004 (the Swift Boat ads started in August of 2004). They also never touched Kerry's false claim that he took his Swift Boat into Cambodia. (1) The Cambodia issue isn't addressed one way or the other on this page and (2) the facts are ambiguous in any case.

[Ziggurat]

xkcd: (http://xkcd.com/250/)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snopes.png

[Rogue1stclass]

Is snopes politically biased?

Sure. Everyone is. The Mikkelsons go through great pains to keep any kind of opinion out of their articles without stating them as such, but they'll admit that bias always sneaks through. Complete objectivity, as it turns out, is not a part of the human condition.

However, they will also tell you that judging from the amount of hate-mail they get accusing them of so many different biases, they are probably doing something right. They can read one email accusing them of being Left Wing nutjobs and the very next one will accuse them of being Bush-loving warmongers.

They actually post the interesting and amusing emails they got on their forum. It's a fun read.

[MikeMangum]

I think I've seen an article or two there that may have been slightly biased towards the left (such as something directed against a liberal or Democrat being marked "False", when, after reading the evidence, I would put squarely in the "Undetermined" category). I'll see if I can find an example. But overall, I'd say Snopes is unbiased, useful, and often entertaining.

I've seen something similar a time or two, where something that really is a subjective thing (or unknown) is referred to as either true or false. The only time I've seen those (maybe 2 or 3 times at most), they picked a point of view that struck me as sympathetic to liberal claims. That being said, 1) the vast majority of things I've seen on Snopes are nothing like that, and 2) I doubt very seriously that I've seen anything close to a representative sample of what is up on Snopes.

[mortimer]

I couldn't find any of the left-leaning pages I recall seeing at Snopes, so I withdraw that accusation. It's always been a valuable source to me for all things urban legend, and even if they do stray to the left on occasion, it's so minor as to not cause me any concern regarding their conclusions or research.

[MattusMaximus]

xkcd: (http://xkcd.com/250/)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snopes.png

Nice one, Zig. Wins thread :D

[MattusMaximus]

However, they will also tell you that judging from the amount of hate-mail they get accusing them of so many different biases, they are probably doing something right. They can read one email accusing them of being Left Wing nutjobs and the very next one will accuse them of being Bush-loving warmongers.

Agreed, and well said :)

[Morrigan]

I'd thought it was common knowledge the Barbara Snopes is liberal. Something like contributions to the democratic party,
1) "Barbara Snopes" isn't her name. It's Barbara Mikkelson.
2) She's a Canadian citizen, how could she contribute to a US party?
3) It's also "common knowledge" that we only use 10% of our brains, that Ericsson is giving away free laptops, or that Cheese Whiz/margarine/American cheese/etc. is 1 molecule away from being plastic, etc. Thankfully, there's this site out there that verifies these "common knowledge" factoids... dunno if you heard of it?


[/quote]But every time I visit, I get a pop-under. So I keep my visits to the minimum.[/QUOTE]
Pop-unders? That's so 2001. Learn how to internet. :p

[Ladewig]

I had heard this particular criticism back in the Bush administration when Snopes listed the Ashcroft-thinks-calico-cats-are-demonic thing as undetermined. Pointed criticisms about this urban legend led them to change the status to false. I believe that these days they are as objective as they can be.

[Dr Adequate]

I need some help here. Is Snopes biased? All the research I have done seems to indicate that they do the best they can, and while not infallible, they are a good starting place to begin a fact-finding search. Well one point you could make is that they seem to be nice enough to Bush. Looking at their file on him, they have shot down lots of derogatory emails like this:

* Recent study proves George W. Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of the past fifty years.

* Texas governor George W. Bush "refused to sell his home" to Blacks.

* President Bush misspoke at a right-to-life rally and repeatedly said "feces" instead of "feces".

... and so forth ... while verifying emails like this:

* During a hospital visit, President George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

* President George W. Bush has been nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

* In 2003, President and Mrs. Bush helped hand out Christmas presents to children of inmates.

... and so on.

Their whole Bush file is here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp). Let anyone who wants to try to show that they've been unfair.

[Dancing David]

Off-topic, you need to upgrade your browser/settings/security. I've been browsing Snopes all day and have experienced none of the above. On-page ads, certainly, but I won't begrudge any site that right. [bolding mine]

I got one pop in back with IE7 but that was all. Ooops, I had the Pop Blocker turned off, stupid OneCare installer.

[Tricky]

It probably seems (to some) that Snopes leans to the left these days because of so many crazy internet rumors flying around about Obama these days. With Bush, they never had to debunk stuff like they did with Obama, like:


He is a Muslim
He refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
He was born in Kenya
He is funded by Hugo Chavez
He was endorsed by the KKK (okay, maybe that one did fly around about Bush too.)
He wrote that the US forefathers were against economic freedom
He was a Black Panther
He is selling B-52s to the Chinese
He was going to require an oath of loyalty to the president rather than the US
His election to the presidency caused the swine flu
Nidal Hassan (the Fort Worth shooter) was his advisor
He tried to repeal the laws of physics
He was going to have his face added to Mount Rushmore
He is not going to have a "Christmas Tree" but a "Holiday Tree"
He took the oath of office on a Quran rather than a Bible

And dang it, but every single one of those was found false. If Snopes had been fair, they would have listed at least one of them as "true", right?

[SonOfLaertes]

It probably seems (to some) that Snopes leans to the left these days because of so many crazy internet rumors flying around about Obama these days. With Bush, they never had to debunk stuff like they did with Obama, like:


He is a Muslim
He refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
He was born in Kenya
He is funded by Hugo Chavez
He was endorsed by the KKK (okay, maybe that one did fly around about Bush too.)
He wrote that the US forefathers were against economic freedom
He was a Black Panther
He is selling B-52s to the Chinese
He was going to require an oath of loyalty to the president rather than the US
His election to the presidency caused the swine flu
Nidal Hassan (the Fort Worth shooter) was his advisor
He tried to repeal the laws of physics
He was going to have his face added to Mount Rushmore
He is not going to have a "Christmas Tree" but a "Holiday Tree"
He took the oath of office on a Quran rather than a Bible

And dang it, but every single one of those was found false. If Snopes had been fair, they would have listed at least one of them as "true", right?

Yeah, I think this is the problem area for Snopes. I have never seen so many "professional" smear mails cobbled together for any other subject, complete with "expert" quotes, "reliable" witnesses, and outrageous claims. There are so many of them that responding with Snopes' rebuttals begins to generate a "oh no, not Snopes again?" response.

Further to the point, I am seeing more and more e-mails which are intentionally put together to further woo-ish agenda, such as the heart care advice supposedly backed by Johns Hopkins I referenced earlier. The scary thing about them is the inclusion of fake experts and institutions which claim to back their agenda. These are crafted e-mails,put together with a certain cunning and knowledge of their target audience.

As with the Obama e-mails, a lot of the recipients simply do not want to have the e-mail exposed as fraudulent. Sometimes I feel like the bad guy by doing so, and wonder if I should just let the garbage flow.

[BenBurch]

... Pop-unders? That's so 2001. Learn how to internet. :p

What browser doesn't have a blocker for those, I wonder?

[SonOfLaertes]

Well one point you could make is that they seem to be nice enough to Bush. Looking at their file on him, they have shot down lots of derogatory emails like this:

* Recent study proves George W. Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of the past fifty years.

* Texas governor George W. Bush "refused to sell his home" to Blacks.

* President Bush misspoke at a right-to-life rally and repeatedly said "feces" instead of "feces".

... and so forth ... while verifying emails like this:

* During a hospital visit, President George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

* President George W. Bush has been nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

* In 2003, President and Mrs. Bush helped hand out Christmas presents to children of inmates.

... and so on.

Their whole Bush file is here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp). Let anyone who wants to try to show that they've been unfair.

I have pointed these out to a few of my friends. I think that the back and forth I have had with them over the past day or two has convinced them grudgingly that Snopes is pretty reliable.

They will jump on any chance to be able to consider Snopes unreliable, however, as they are tired of their pet "Obama is Muslim/Evil/a foreigner" e-mails being trashed.

[Travis]

I have pointed these out to a few of my friends. I think that the back and forth I have had with them over the past day or two has convinced them grudgingly that Snopes is pretty reliable.

They will jump on any chance to be able to consider Snopes unreliable, however, as they are tired of their pet "Obama is Muslim/Evil/a foreigner" e-mails being trashed.

I would advise them that it would be better if they stopped wanting untrue things about Obama to be true. That's just not healthy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

On a bit of a derail, I think some of the factcheck.org articles show a strange bias. It's neither left nor right though. I'd call it the "fair and balanced" bias. They seem to think that if you catch one side in a lie you have to even it out with a lie from the other side, and that all misrepresentations of fact are the same.

For example, during the Kerry campaign, I recall where both sides cited numbers of how many Iraqi troops were trained and ready. (I don't recall the numbers--sorry.) Kerry cheated by rounding down the figure improperly to the lower thousand (like truncating the number, when rounding it up would've been called for--if the real number was 5600, Kerry said 5000 rather than 6000.) But the Bush campaign exaggerated the number by a couple of orders of magnitude. (If the number was 5600, he said something like 200,000.) Yes they were both falsehoods, but one was relatively minor, and the other was a whopper.

Again, I'm not saying they're biased to one side or another, but that they sometimes miss the point in an attempt to appear even-handed.

[daredelvis]

It probably seems (to some) that Snopes leans to the left these days because of so many crazy internet rumors flying around about Obama these days. With Bush, they never had to debunk stuff like they did with Obama, like:


He is a Muslim
He refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
He was born in Kenya
He is funded by Hugo Chavez
He was endorsed by the KKK (okay, maybe that one did fly around about Bush too.)
He wrote that the US forefathers were against economic freedom
He was a Black Panther
He is selling B-52s to the Chinese
He was going to require an oath of loyalty to the president rather than the US
His election to the presidency caused the swine flu
Nidal Hassan (the Fort Worth shooter) was his advisor
He tried to repeal the laws of physics
He was going to have his face added to Mount Rushmore
He is not going to have a "Christmas Tree" but a "Holiday Tree"
He took the oath of office on a Quran rather than a Bible

And dang it, but every single one of those was found false. If Snopes had been fair, they would have listed at least one of them as "true", right?
You forgot,
I'd thought it was common knowledge the Barbara Snopes is liberal. Something like contributions to the democratic party, plus a bit of a slant to just a few articles. Things like participant numbers in one of the marches in D.C. ? Seems I remember some hoo-hoo a couple years back.



Daredelvis

[SonOfLaertes]

I would advise them that it would be better if they stopped wanting untrue things about Obama to be true. That's just not healthy.

Maybe not healthy, but par for the course. There are a lot of people in this country who are quite simply terrified of Democratic control of the government.

These are good, sensible people who have bought into the Democrat's-are-going-to-spend-and-tax-this-country-into-ruin meme. They turn a blind eye to the contribution that Bush & Co. made towards our financial difficulties, and seize on any evidence of guilt they can pin on the "other side".

Maybe I mis-spoke: they don't want these e-mails to be true; they want as many people as possible to believe they are true, because in their hearts they believe that the wrong people are in control of the purse strings, and anything which hurts the other side is therefore justified. So they forward e-mails crafted by sympathetic fellows without concern for the truth.

[Beerina]

I haven't seen any "liberal bias" there.

They're even cleaner than Quackwatch in that respect, which has a couple of political bleats for government health care under their "Insurance watch" section, in addition to some good articles about scam-like behavior of said insurance companies.

[Travis]

Maybe not healthy, but par for the course. There are a lot of people in this country who are quite simply terrified of Democratic control of the government.

These are good, sensible people who have bought into the Democrat's-are-going-to-spend-and-tax-this-country-into-ruin meme. They turn a blind eye to the contribution that Bush & Co. made towards our financial difficulties, and seize on any evidence of guilt they can pin on the "other side".

Maybe I mis-spoke: they don't want these e-mails to be true; they want as many people as possible to believe they are true, because in their hearts they believe that the wrong people are in control of the purse strings, and anything which hurts the other side is therefore justified. So they forward e-mails crafted by sympathetic fellows without concern for the truth.

I just don't understand that. I mean both sides are prone to it but it always bugs me. When I encountered obvious untruths about Bush I always did my best to refute them even though I hadn't voted for the guy and was not a Republican.

[SonOfLaertes]

I just don't understand that. I mean both sides are prone to it but it always bugs me. When I encountered obvious untruths about Bush I always did my best to refute them even though I hadn't voted for the guy and was not a Republican.

I'm with you there. Personally I distrust both sides equally. But I see this attitude everywhere. The Democrats themselves are to blame , as they are simply not as good as the Republicans at painting the other side with a broad brush.

When the Republicans were in control they spent money like water, and severely disappointed my expectations. But the Dems can't seem to get that message out there, and most people still see the Repubs as fiscally responsible. And so the pendulum will swing back come November,2010.

Help me, Obi-wan Independent Voters. You're my only hope.

[Darth Rotor]

Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen --.
And therefore, obviously a liberal! :jaw-dropp:eye-poppi:eek::p:jaw-dropp:boggled:

Snopes may not be "purely neutral" but I have detected no axe to grind in the five years I have been using it on and off.

I'll offer a target: Snopes is fair, to within 1.5 to 2 standard deviations, possiblly better.

DR

[Stellafane]

Is Snopes politically biased?

No, that's just an urban legend.

[SonOfLaertes]

And therefore, obviously a liberal! :jaw-dropp:eye-poppi:eek::p:jaw-dropp:boggled:

Snopes may not be "purely neutral" but I have detected no axe to grind in the five years I have been using it on and off.

I'll offer a target: Snopes is fair, to within 1.5 to 2 standard deviations, possiblly better.

DR

While trying to gather opinions over the last few days from various sources, the thing that strikes me the most is the lack of serious negative attitudes towards Snopes ( exepting the e-mail which started this whole thing ). I can't find much praise from the hard right, or the hard left, but I can't find any serious condemnation either. As I have said, this fact in and of itself would suggest a general acceptance of Snopes.

I do worry that the appearance of that e-mail may pre-sage the start of a smear campaign against a tool which handily tackles other smear campaigns.

[thaiboxerken]

The folks that think Snopes is liberally biased are the same folks that think Fox News is fair and balanced.

[Ziggurat]

And dang it, but every single one of those was found false. If Snopes had been fair, they would have listed at least one of them as "true", right?

Your argument is actually weaker than you suppose. Balance is not exhibited by mislabeling a false statement as true, but one could claim that including statements which ARE true but unflattering would be required for balance. For example, Obama won his first election by having his opponent kicked off the ballot.

[SonOfLaertes]

Your argument is actually weaker than you suppose. Balance is not exhibited by mislabeling a false statement as true, but one could claim that including statements which ARE true but unflattering would be required for balance. For example, Obama won his first election by having his opponent kicked off the ballot.

I took Tricky's last line to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps I am mistaken.

[Snide]

I took Tricky's last line to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps I am mistaken.I thought it was pretty obvious, too.

[Ziggurat]

I took Tricky's last line to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps I am mistaken.

I suspect it is, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't trying to make a point. I think he was.

[Dr Adequate]

Your argument is actually weaker than you suppose. Balance is not exhibited by mislabeling a false statement as true, but one could claim that including statements which ARE true but unflattering would be required for balance. For example, Obama won his first election by having his opponent kicked off the ballot. Except that, as has been pointed out, the function of Snopes is to verify or debunk viral emails. It isn't their job to produce a complete biography of Barack Obama.

[Ziggurat]

Except that, as has been pointed out, the function of Snopes is to verify or debunk viral emails. It isn't their job to produce a complete biography of Barack Obama.

True. But they aren't obliged to debunk every email they hear about. They can select which emails to debunk and which to ignore. Bias could affect that. Does it? I don't know. I'm not sure we could tell from outside, and certainly not without considerable effort at surveying viral emails, which few people (me included) have any interest in doing.

My point isn't that I think Snopes is biased, merely that it certainly could be, and that Tricky's insinuation about the relevance of bias and balance doesn't really cover the range of possibilities. But even if it is biased, that doesn't mean it can't be useful or reliable.

[SonOfLaertes]

True. But they aren't obliged to debunk every email they hear about. They can select which emails to debunk and which to ignore. Bias could affect that. Does it? I don't know. I'm not sure we could tell from outside, and certainly not without considerable effort at surveying viral emails, which few people (me included) have any interest in doing.

My point isn't that I think Snopes is biased, merely that it certainly could be, and that Tricky's insinuation about the relevance of bias and balance doesn't really cover the range of possibilities. But even if it is biased, that doesn't mean it can't be useful or reliable.

Generally, if I recieve chain mail, whether politically based or not, I can find an analysis of it in Snopes. I'm talking about chain mail which has obviously gone through many iterations of forwarding, mind you, not something I've received with only one or two degress of seperation.

So I don't think Snopes is picking and choosing the e-mails they analyze.

[gtc]

This article about Bush (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp) and his family visiting one of the Fort Hood survivors might help convince some of the people who think Snopes are biased. It seems to be written from a very positive view point.

[Perfume V]

I would agree that Snopes is a very neutral site, perhaps the most even-handed I have ever seen. And yet every second topic on its Wikipedia discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snopes.com)is a cry for Wiki to include full details of the many dark crimes the Mikkelsons have committed, few of which are ever substantiated or elaborated on.

I've seen a lot of criticism of Snopes from both sides of the aisle - as has been noted, they used to have a whole thread on their forum dedicated to the more rabid mail they got. What struck me was that every time they debunked a smear on a Republican, they were accused of being neo-con flag-waving homophobic warmongers, and every time they debunked a smear on a Democrat they were accused of being terrorist-hugging Marxist Islamist America-haters. It's hard not to think fondly of people who have such a bipartisan haters' club.

[ponderingturtle]

My friends are reasonably intelligent people. If a conservative friend were shown a video with, say, Bill O'Reilly using Snopes as a reference source, I would have ammunition to refute some anti-Snopes rebuttals.

See you made a mistake here, Bill O'Reilly doesn't use sources.

[MattusMaximus]

I do worry that the appearance of that e-mail may pre-sage the start of a smear campaign against a tool which handily tackles other smear campaigns.

Yup, this is an emerging tactic of the wingnut crowd: don't argue facts, instead go after & smear any institution which doesn't cater to your ideology. If the respectability of the institution is called into question, then the need for dealing with pesky facts & research go right out the window, and you're free to make up whatever "truth" caters to your particular ideology.

[GanipGnop]

They are taking a page from the Church of Scientology, "attack the attacker and never defend your own position". These "dead agent" attacks should be seen as what they are unsubstantiated BS. If your friends want to claim Snopes is bias make them produce hard evidence a chain mail letter isn't evidence. I'd hold their feet to the fire too they would have to convince me with facts not innuendo. They'd first need to tell me how many stories Snopes has solved then they would need to show me the alleged bias in the stories they covered and how that bias invalidated the facts. These people can't attack the facts so they cry bias as if their opinions are middle of the road. Cops are bias against criminals but it doesn't invalidate their arrests only facts can do that.

I don't get chain emails because I've made it clear to everyone that I will bomb them with automated replies if they try to waste my time with boilerplate drivel the same goes for "joke of the day" or any other such nonsense. Chain emails are the epitome of lazy debating people rarely bother to question them if it supports their preconceived notions off it goes to everyone they know. When has an email chain ever produced factual information that became indisputable mainstream knowledge? I'm not saying it has never happened but it hasn't happened enough to stick in my memory.

As it has been said before you are wasting your time presenting facts when they will just be countered with irrelevant strawmen. Remember what Schiller said, "Against stupidity the very Gods themselves toil in vain."

[MattusMaximus]

As it has been said before you are wasting your time presenting facts when they will just be countered with irrelevant strawmen. Remember what Schiller said, "Against stupidity the very Gods themselves toil in vain."

I love that quote :D

[Tricky]

Your argument is actually weaker than you suppose. Balance is not exhibited by mislabeling a false statement as true, but one could claim that including statements which ARE true but unflattering would be required for balance. For example, Obama won his first election by having his opponent kicked off the ballot.

Your argument is pretty weak too. Even if Obama pointed out some legal problems with his opponent (and I'm not sure he was the instigator) it is the law that had him kicked off the ballot. If Obama had made a spurious charge, it would not have happened.

So perhaps such a statement would be unflattering, but not true.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had heard this particular criticism back in the Bush administration when Snopes listed the Ashcroft-thinks-calico-cats-are-demonic thing as undetermined. Pointed criticisms about this urban legend led them to change the status to false. I believe that these days they are as objective as they can be.
Maybe they changed it because Ashcroft himself denied it. :rolleyes:

Ashcroft FAQ WhiteHouse web page (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/ask/jashcroft.asp)Bob Bucklew, from Cleveland, OH writes:
I have heard that you think that calico cats are evil. I have looked in the bible, and can't find anything about them - what's up?

Attorney General Ashcroft:
You know, I'm glad you asked that question. This whole nonsense about me thinking that calico cats are demonic is nothing more than a nonsense rumor. It was first reported by that limey rag The Guardian, and has since been embraced and propagated by every loony tunes liberal who wants to smear me. Let me state for the record right here - it is false. Furthermore, if at some point in the indeterminate future, some trash TV tabloid "breaks" a story with video of someone who looks just like me, in the back yard of a house that looks just like mine, speaking in tongues and feeding a whole litter of calico kittens into a John Deere yard mulcher, that too will be will be a big old load of hooey. Capiche? Good.


Could be rather CT of you to think it was changed because of political pressure.

[Ladewig]

Maybe they changed it because Ashcroft himself denied it. :rolleyes:

Ashcroft FAQ WhiteHouse web page (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/ask/jashcroft.asp)


Could be rather CT of you to think it was changed because of political pressure.

You quoted a parody site.

[Slayhamlet]

Maybe they changed it because Ashcroft himself denied it. :rolleyes:

Ashcroft FAQ WhiteHouse web page (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/ask/jashcroft.asp)


Could be rather CT of you to think it was changed because of political pressure.

Do you even read what you quote?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You quoted a parody site.It looked real. :o

Oh well.

Here's Maureen Dowd's NYTs column (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/opinion/a-blue-burka-for-justice.html) saying she asked and was told the rumor was not true:Mindy Tucker, then Mr. Ashcroft's press secretary, told me he had laughed and said it was silly.


My point is the same. A direct question to Ashcroft settles the issue, it shouldn't leave it as "undetermined" unless there was some evidence Ashcroft was lying.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you even read what you quote?Right, if you've never missed anything like "Officious" in the logo box as a clue a site was a parody, then I'd say you don't get on the Net much, or, you spend waaaay too much time looking for a source on a trivial matter.

[Renfield]

Snopes has debunked a lot of the right wing propaganda regarding Obama, like the birther nonsense, which undoubtedly makes them "liberal" in a lot of conservatives eyes. Most conservatives I know think that if you don't tow the Republican line 100 percent of the time, you might as well be a card carrying communist.

[Tricky]

Snopes has debunked a lot of the right wing propaganda regarding Obama, like the birther nonsense, which undoubtedly makes them "liberal" in a lot of conservatives eyes. Most conservatives I know think that if you don't tow the Republican line 100 percent of the time, you might as well be a card carrying communist.
That's just silly.

It's only 80% of the time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160288).

[Upchurch]

If a conservative friend were shown a video with, say, Bill O'Reilly using Snopes as a reference source, I would have ammunition to refute some anti-Snopes rebuttals.

It was a billion years ago, in internet time, but O'Reilly did once reference a snopes source. Unfortunately, the only reference I can find right now is MediaMatters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200505190009), but here is what he said:
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day": setting the record straight on Jane Fonda. Now, last night I told Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine that I was not willing to give Ms. Fonda a pass on the accusation she turned over notes from American POWs to the North Vietnamese during her trip to Hanoi.

A web site called Snopes.com has investigated and debunked that accusation. They say it's not true.

Well, we decided to research it. We spent the day doing it. And the indication is that Snopes is correct! The story is bogus. So at this point, lacking any definable evidence to the contrary, Jane Fonda did not turn over any POW notes to the Vietnamese.

We're happy to clarify the record. It would be ridiculous not to do so. All right. Way to go, Snopes.com.

[Slayhamlet]

Right, if you've never missed anything like "Officious" in the logo box as a clue a site was a parody, then I'd say you don't get on the Net much, or, you spend waaaay too much time looking for a source on a trivial matter.

WTF? No, this has nothing to do with a logo box. The fake quotation from Ashcroft was so obviously satirical that it would require either massive amounts of confirmation bias or a seriously out-of-touch person to take it at face value. Either way it doesn't speak much for the quality of your thought.

[Ladewig]

It looked real. :o

Oh well.

Here's Maureen Dowd's NYTs column (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/opinion/a-blue-burka-for-justice.html) saying she asked and was told the rumor was not true:


My point is the same. A direct question to Ashcroft settles the issue, it shouldn't leave it as "undetermined" unless there was some evidence Ashcroft was lying.

The change in status took place before Ashcroft denied it. I am relying on my memory and thus have no tangible evidence, but change was described by Snopes as being the result of complaints.

[Praktik]

How USEFUL is snopes? VERY!

Just got a forward, responded 3 mins later "reply all" with the following:

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/telephone/jailcall.asp

[SonOfLaertes]

It was a billion years ago, in internet time, but O'Reilly did once reference a snopes source. Unfortunately, the only reference I can find right now is MediaMatters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200505190009), but here is what he said:

Thanks for this reference; I haven't checked in to this thread for a while, thought it had run its course.

[Snide]

How USEFUL is snopes? VERY!

Just got a forward, responded 3 mins later "reply all" with the following:

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/telephone/jailcall.aspI got a chuckle out of that, because I once "replied to all" and sent a Snopes link in an Obama-bashing e-mail from my ex. I added a message of my own syaing "please do not send me such falsehoods."

Four people replied back to me with, "I didn't send you anything." Two of them actually believed I was referring to her and not just calling out the original sender (my ex). The other two were ex-in-laws who were trying to scold me for replying to all. One of them even said words to the effect of, "I don't need a reply-to-all, aka a shotgun e-mail, to tell me not to send something I didn't send."

I declined schooling him further about what a shotgun e-mail really is. I pondered apologizing to him for replying to all with my additional "please do not send" message, but it wasn't the first time the ex had done something like that, so I had to call her out, and thus I did not apologize. I hope your experience went better. :)

Anyway, as you were...
/sidebar