Support For Anti-Snopes Sentiment?

[JessFields]

I have always disregarded Snopes, as I've found them inaccurate and biased. I honestly haven't given the site much inspection in years.

Recently, a close friend has begun referencing Snopes as a resource when discussing various issues. My instinct is to tell them it isn't a valid source, but I would like to have references- perhaps an article referencing inaccuracies etc. Any references are appreciated!

 

[Attakai]

They seem to be fairly accurate in general. Though I doubt they would stray from mainstream "science" when it comes to more in depth things such as diet or more conspiratorial subjects.

 

[nomoreketones]

I thought snopes used to be good until they ventured into opinion checking rather than fact checking. Anyone who doubts this, count the number of facts and the number of opinions in the following article. Observe how much of the article is about the facts that the article is checking (defined in the title) vs how many facts are irrelevant to the facts being checked. Also after reading the article see if you can guess what the political position of the author has? If you can guess the political position of the author then it is not a very good fact check article.
What’s True and False About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Alleged Victims

 

[aguineapig]

It lacks nuance, tends to be implicitly biased. Not quite as bad as some make it out to be, but bad enough to be carful. It is essentially a thinly veiled opinion piece on something.

 

[nomoreketones]

Opinion pieces are fine but not on a fact checking site. To bad Snopes is no longer a fact checking site.

As a matter of fact, I don't think there is a single legitimate non-partisan fact checking site in existence anymore. I guess its up to everyone to do their own fact checking which is a very tedious and time consuming process. None of us has time to fact check everything.

 

[TripleOG]

Here you go:

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers

 

[PxD]

Snopes is opinionated garbage masquerading as objective fact checking.

As far as fact checking websites go in general, I’ve never understood the concept. They don’t do anything that you can’t do yourself on a search engine in a couple of minutes. I don’t understand how “fact checking” is a profitable business model. How does one get paid to do internet searches on topics of which one has zero practical knowledge or expertise, while claiming to be an authoritative source of information on any given topic, far and wide? IMO this has zero credibility and almost zero real world value. The only value I can see it having is to organizations that use companies like Snopes as tools for their propaganda agendas.

Best of all is when I see fact checkers fact checking and critiquing experts in a given field...the height of arrogance.

 

[PxD]

I have always disregarded Snopes, as I've found them inaccurate and biased. I honestly haven't given the site much inspection in years.

Recently, a close friend has begun referencing Snopes as a resource when discussing various issues. My instinct is to tell them it isn't a valid source, but I would like to have references- perhaps an article referencing inaccuracies etc. Any references are appreciated!

If it were me, I’d ask my friend why they have such a hardon for Snopes and if they realize that it’s literally just a guy, his ex-prostitute former mistress, and a handful of employees who are claiming authoritative knowledge on all things under the sun, because they know how to type a query into a search engine.

 

[Pablo Cruise]

Agree....Snopes pretends to objectively fact check but they are not in my experience.

 

[nomoreketones]

Agree....Snopes pretends to objectively fact check but they are not in my experience.

They used to be really good at one time. Too bad they aren't anymore.

 

[postman]

It's simple reason, it's not the primary source so it cannot be used authoritatively, without being an argument from authority, a logical fallacy.

Ask your friend to prove what he/she is inferring with actual evidence, and to not link you to the opinions of someone else, which is all snopes is.

 

[Dezertfox]

Snopes is liberal biased garbage not to mention controversial history of the founders. You can google that.
Exhibit A - https://twitter.com/TheHinduDindu/status/1304400080099737602?s=20

Exhibit B - https://twitter.com/ksemamajama/status/1305300635294760961

Exhibit C - https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1304177428672151553?s=20

This should be enough to shut everyone up about their non partisanship and credibility.

 

[nomoreketones]

Does anyone know of any non-partisan news sources?

Reuters used to be non-partison but as of late there have been some articles where the authors clearly interject their politics in what are supposed to be news stories. Reuters still has many articles that are proper news stories but their quality control is declining and more news stories with political spin are being published.

What is going on with journalism these days? Are all the universities just churning out completely incompetent journalists one after another?

Anyone know of a non-partisan replacement for snopes and reuters?

 

[TheSir]

Does anyone know of any non-partisan news sources?

Reuters used to be non-partison but as of late there have been some articles where the authors clearly interject their politics in what are supposed to be news stories. Reuters still has many articles that are proper news stories but their quality control is declining and more news stories with political spin are being published.

What is going on with journalism these days? Are all the universities just churning out completely incompetent journalists one after another?

Anyone know of a non-partisan replacement for snopes and reuters?

Non-partisan journalism has been dead for probably longer than I have been alive, if it ever existed in the first place. Information age has allowed journalism to be exposed for what it is, which has created the illusion of journalism being less honest than it used to be. In the past it simply was not possible for us to be aware how biased journalism was.

 

[Waynish]

Seriously? If it were my forum, then anyone who referenced Snopes more than once would be banned. It is totally fraudulent. Lookup the founder's prostitution frauds.

 

[nomoreketones]

In the past it simply was not possible for us to be aware how biased journalism was.

In my opinion, partisanship in journalism is worse now than 5 years ago.

I have heard the idea somewhere that the root cause is competition with independent journalists. According to this idea, mainstream media gets more views when they become partisan vs when they write articles/headlines with a neutral/unbiased tone.

 

[PxD]

In my opinion, partisanship in journalism is worse now than 5 years ago.

I have heard the idea somewhere that the root cause is competition with independent journalists. According to this idea, mainstream media gets more views when they become partisan vs when they write articles/headlines with a neutral/unbiased tone.

As far as I can tell, the corporate mainstream media is overwhelmingly leftist-liberal nowadays (Frankfurt School social ideas, pro-globalism/outsourcing, pro-open borders/mass migration, etc.) with a few notable exceptions, like Fox and the WSJ. It really changed around 2012-2013, when it started trying to shift the Overton window over to the far left.

I think the reason is that academia is well captured by critical theorists at this point, and they're the ones training and churning out journalists and educators.

 

[Dezertfox]

As far as I can tell, the corporate mainstream media is overwhelmingly leftist-liberal nowadays (Frankfurt School social ideas, pro-globalism/outsourcing, pro-open borders/mass migration, etc.) with a few notable exceptions, like Fox and the WSJ. It really changed around 2012-2013, when it started trying to shift the Overton window over to the far left.

I think the reason is that academia is well captured by critical theorists at this point, and they're the ones training and churning out journalists and educators.

You're bang on but the problem is whenever you argue with a liberal they would be back with "more educated people are liberal". I have some responses to that but still looking for the perfect response.

 

[nomoreketones]

As far as I can tell, the corporate mainstream media is overwhelmingly leftist-liberal nowadays (Frankfurt School social ideas, pro-globalism/outsourcing, pro-open borders/mass migration, etc.) with a few notable exceptions, like Fox and the WSJ. It really changed around 2012-2013, when it started trying to shift the Overton window over to the far left.

I think the reason is that academia is well captured by critical theorists at this point, and they're the ones training and churning out journalists and educators.

People confuse liberals with progressives and Marxists.

Here are a few key differences:
Liberals are anti-authoritarian. Progressives/Marxists are authoritarian
Liberals believe in freedom especially free speech for everyone including those they disagree with. Progressives/Marxists only allow speech that they don't label, "hate speech"
Liberals believe in the right to peacefully assemble regardless of ideology. Progressives/Marxists attack others who peacefully assemble when they don't like the ideology of those assembling.

 

[PxD]

People confuse liberals with progressives and Marxists.

Here are a few key differences:
Liberals are anti-authoritarian. Progressives/Marxists are authoritarian
Liberals believe in freedom especially free speech for everyone including those they disagree with. Progressives/Marxists only allow speech that they don't label, "hate speech"
Liberals believe in the right to peacefully assemble regardless of ideology. Progressives/Marxists attack others who peacefully assemble when they don't like the ideology of those assembling.

You are absolutely right but somewhere along the way the original meaning of liberal has been lost and after it stopped meaning “politically and economically liberal” it has now become interchangeable with progressive/Marxist.