Fact-Checking Website Snopes Is Locked In a Nasty Legal Dispute (seattletimes.com) 216
jader3rd shares a report from The Seattle Times: After more than two decades battling internet hoaxes, retouched photos, and other fake news, David Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes, faces a much larger and more existential adversary. Since 2017, Mikkelson has been locked in a nasty legal dispute with former business associates over control of Snopes, the pioneering fact-checking website that Mikkelson launched with a former wife in 1994 and which he now runs with his current wife from their house in Tacoma. The dispute, which is playing out in the California courts, has generated claims and counterclaims of financial mismanagement, conspiracy and embezzlement. Mikkelson stands accused of, among other things, using company funds for 'lavish' vacations, while he in turn levels accusations of fraud. It has also been so costly that, by Mikkelson's account, Snopes and its parent company, Bardav, might have gone under without help from GoFundMe campaigns, and Snopes hasn't been able to operate at full capacity, even as demand for internet fact-checking grows by the week.
Nice (Score:5, Funny)
Those are exactly the types of claims and counter-claims you want to see from the leaders of a site proclaiming to always tell you the whole truth.
Nothing at all should be read into it.
It will sort out (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing at all should be read into it.
When I hire an employee I do my best to keep out of that employee's private life. Nearly everyone has something in their past that doesn't "look good" and yet has little or nothing to do with their ability to perform on the job they were hired to do. You can approach a web site owner much the same way.
My dad was a lawyer of some 60 years of active practice and some of it was divorce court stuff. Seeing it convinced me I didn't want to be a lawyer myself. This case as described has all the markings of that type of case where emotions are high and accusations are flung where dramatic effect is more important than context or even basic facts.
So yes, I won't read too much into this and I doubt the judge will either. Over the years snopes has been useful to me personally now and then when I am trying to talk some non-critical-thinking acquaintance down off a pinnacle of dudgeon that they want me to ascend with them.
One last thing -- a scion of the dot-com boom who made lots of money from back then doesn't stay at the Eco-lodge? Shocking. Get over it.
Re: (Score:1)
This case as described has all the markings of that type of case where emotions are high and accusations are flung
In other words, virtually every divorce bar a handful. (?)
I think you're spot-on: family court judges - more than others - are ever vigilant of emotion. In Australia, I believe all Family Courts have been above ground floor for a couple of decades. Why? Think 'father having his children taken away'. Then think '4WD'. Very sad ... now they're facing criminal charges in addition to the recent woes.
I should also mention the article doesn't actually say the case is being heard in Family Court. It only says "Cal
Re: It will sort out (Score:2, Interesting)
"all Family Courts have been above ground floor for a couple of decades. Why?"
Because their primary function - dismembering working class families - is so overtly evil that they must be protected from the well-founded rage of the general public.
Ever been to an old courthouse in America? They typically had many public entrances and very little security. The people could, and were encouraged to, just walk in and observe justice at work. That's what a morally upright legal system with _widespread popular sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"You can approach a web site owner much the same way. "
No you can't. The owner of snopes cannot be trusted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you can't. The owner of snopes cannot be trusted.
Why? Are you saying a person accused of something can't be trusted?
I accuse you of being untrustworthy. Do you now agree that you are factually not trustworthy? Including the comment you just made?
Re: It will sort out (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the owners of snopes started out fact checking universal things like 'aids needles under gas pump handles' and 'flashing your highbeams will make gang members shoot you', spread via faxes and chain emails. They then chose to put their greasy thumbs on the scale and pronounce themselves the authority of truthiness based on this previously earned reputation.
Now they blatantly pander to the liberal agenda by claiming something is false when the cherrypick part of an argument as to explain why.
Their str
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Like how they handled the issue of Hillary's health problems.
During the last presidential campaign, Hillary had some eye issues. But there was no way in hell Snopes was going to confirm Hillary had health problems. Not when she was running against literally Hitler.
So what they did is set up a false question so they could knock it down and paste a big fat FALSE on it. They framed the issue in the form of a question nobody was asking, namely:
> CLAIM: Hillary Clinton cancelled a campaign event
Re: (Score:2)
PLUS, they had NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE. Just that they can't prove it.
You have to have actual evidence that it's true. Otherwise it should be discounted as "yet more false rumors about politicians" that flooded the Internet circa 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how wrong the parent is, but David and Barbara did get started on alt.urbanlegends many moons ago. I think the web site was started at some point to make money off some FAQ they had created about urban legends like "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" or "The Jamaican Toothbrush".
I'd wager that the tumult of divorce and the need for revenue perhaps compromised the debunking business, especially when wading into today's politics where the all parts of the political spectrum stretch the truth pretty far.
Re: It will sort out (Score:2, Informative)
Their record isnâ(TM)t perfect, but they always cite their sources and evaluate the statements on the face of the claim. There is a huge amount of fake stuff being pumped out by the right and their foreign supporters these days, so any fact-checking site is going to appear to have a liberal bias.
Thing is, Snopes doesnâ(TM)t claim to be the final word. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com] (Be sure to click the âoeAbout this pageâ at the bottom.). They just make calls based on carefully cited
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, these generic accusations about Snopes always come around these sorts of stories.
Of course, you can't attack or even address the generic accusation. How can I? Somehow we're supposed to prove Snopes innocent as if the default position of their lies and bias should be reasonable to all and should just be accepted at face value.
Re: It will sort out (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously. There was this factoid making rounds about misgendering a person in New York being a risk of $80,000 fine. So, Snopes "Checked". Their checked claim: "Misgendering a person in New York being a risk of $250,000 fine." Status: False. Basis: The fine in worst case can be $120,000.
The story you are referring to bears little resemblance to your description. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it tied to housing landlords, or just general speech? If the latter it is destined for a fall since calling people mean things is protected by the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate, or accidental repeated. There are two tiers of punishment, $250k for "wanton, willful or malicious" and $125k for merely "repeated".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? Let's have a closer look.
Claim: Property owners in New York City will be fined $250,000 for using "improper pronouns" due to new transgender laws.
What's True: The New York City Commission on Human Rights released new guidelines[...]
What's False: Accidentally referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronoun in NYC will result in a $250,000 fine.
[...]
Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeate
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and one more thing. Click the "See example".
So, Snopes happily dropped the "up to" just to create the inaccuracy upon which they based their debunk.
The only detail where the claim may be inaccurate is that one-time, accidental misgendering of someone is not a violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good old Uranium One, the thing we blame Hillary Clinton for, even though she had no veto power and didn't sit on the committee that could have filed an objection, and the donations that represent a bribe for which we have have zero evidence of quid quo pro for occurred either years before or well after.
Re:It will sort out (Score:4, Funny)
The assertion that "The owner of snopes cannot be trusted" is not correct. I checked over on Snopes.com and it was judged to be "False".
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
There are jobs where that's non-issue. The result is verifiable, and verified before going out of the door, and the verification process is reasonably tamper-proof, so whoever the employee is, the system will accomodate, either ignoring irrelevant vices, or getting the employee fired on relevant ones.
But there are jobs where verification of results is not nearly as easy. For example - it's the employee in question who does the verification - or is required to deliver an impartial judgment, or is trusted wit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, either they were lying before or they are lying now, either way, when it comes down to CASH, they will clearly lie and betray those who they gave a life long vow not to betray. So whether true or false, they still look like lying sacks of shit, just the way it is, no excuses. When you want to be the online arbiters of truth, there are ZERO excuses for lying. Don't want to be the online arbiters of truth, lie away but if you want to be, you can not be caught lying.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Those are exactly the types of claims and counter-claims you want to see from the leaders of a site proclaiming to always tell you the whole truth.
Nothing at all should be read into it.
I wonder how many folks realize that Snopes doesn't really tell the whole truth all the time? Come on folks, wise up. Where Snopes is often right, they also have been shown to ignore relevant evidence when their political opinion would be harmed.
However... In this case, read all you want into the claims here. Just don't be fooled into thinking you know the truth or that Snopes' owners are giving you the truth in this. Truth is, we don't really know...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many folks realize that Snopes doesn't really tell the whole truth all the time?
They've seemed full of lame accusations and false equivalencies for a decade, to me. They also like to use word games to get to their answer, even where the core truth of whatever they're talking about didn't include the words they're gaming.
To snopes, every politician is partially lying, even if only because somebody else had false expectations. And every lie is partially true, if phrased right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nice (Score:5, Informative)
The Hadiths say so. Plenty of passages mentions laves, eg:
there's no tax on horse or slaves belonging to Muslims [quranx.com]. Handy.
Mohammed famously swapped 2 black slaves for 1 white one.
He slept with one of his wive's maids (Mariyah the Copt) which so pissed his wives off, he needed divine intervention to get them off his back (always makes me laugh at that)
there's a lot more info here:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur... [wikiislam.net]
Re: Nice (Score:2)
No but it's the sort of shot you see all the time when a large business starts sniffing a meal in a small business. Snopes is still snopes. The company who's been attempting a hostile takeover is not snopes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. How astute of you! Oh wait ... You were serious. They don't say "Trust us; we know and we are honest." They provide the actual facts with references and everything. So it really doesn't matter if the guy took a lavish vacation. Facts are facts and there are no "alt facts."
And you can tell they're facts because ... someone you see as honest said they were? See how easy it is! And any inconvenient facts omitted, well, they must not be important or Snopes would have included them. I mean, you trust them, right, so you know they aren't being very creative in what they present as fact.
Trust is the result of honesty over time, nothing more. And "facts" are only trust. We can verify very little in life, the rest is trust. And trust in "facts" is usually misplaced: anyone who's
Re: Nice (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Because it is about "trust us, we are honest". That's the part that matters. If their trustworthiness becomes questionable, the rest does too.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonde what a conservative is in your view. To me, a conservative is someone who prefers the current way of doing things until there's sufficient evidence (a.k.a. "facts") that some new way is actually better in practice. E.g., a conservative engineer doesn't want to be the first to try out a new material, at least not without extensive testing. Or a social conservative isn't open to new ways of living, at least until there's generations of evidence that people are happier and more successful living tha
Re: Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously never had a logic class, or understand the concept of objective truth.
Not everything is subjective, or a matter of belief or perception.
One of us actually studied philosophy, and I don't think it's you. Perception is our only access to "objective truth", excepting a priori truths, and even those aren't as certain as you might think.
But my point is, how do you know something is a fact? Did you investigate it yourself? Are you an expert, such that your actually good at that investigation? Or are you instead just trusting someone to tell you what is fact?
.
Re: (Score:2)
Metaphysics is an interesting topic but has little practical use when it comes to truth. You have to rely on the assumption that many things you have not personally verified are true, and in fact you are not qualified and do not have enough time or money to verify many of those things even if you were motivated to.
The very real danger of worrying about this is that you end up deciding there is no real truth and just believe whatever you want to believe, rather than what the available evidence suggests is tr
Re: (Score:2)
he very real danger of worrying about this is that you end up deciding there is no real truth and just believe whatever you want to believe, rather than what the available evidence suggests is true. Sure, using available evidence may sometimes lead to errors, but it's still your best choice.
There's a very real danger in choosing "experts" who confirm your world view, and closing yourself off to any new ideas. It's the basis of much religious following, and much modern thought.
Never stop learning.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: Nice (Score:2)
Re: Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Snopes jumped the shark when they began spending a lot of time publishing political editorials disguised as "fact-checking". They were much better at debunking random made-up stories where the fact-checkers didn't have a personal emotional stake in the outcome of their "checking".
Re: (Score:2)
Once you go there I know you have utterly lost the debate; you have nothing to say in response to reality so you carve your own little alt-reality safe space for your mental illness to hide in.
Ok.
I work with paranoid schizophrenics. Everyday I read leftists on the forums who are equally unable to cope with reality. It truly makes me wonder if leftism really is a mental disorder we need to treat with therapy and medication
There you go. You have "utterly lost the debate."
Re: Nice (Score:2)
Snopes (Score:2)
I'll believe it when I ... oh... hold on...
Fishy (Score:5, Funny)
...Oh, right.
A link to the gofundme page (Score:1, Informative)
https://www.snopes.com/support... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe once upon a time, before they became hyper-political and caught a severe case of Trump derangement like so many other sites. In recent years they've been just another bias peddler.
Re:A link to the gofundme page (Score:5, Insightful)
Snopes used to be a fun trivia site.
Then they decided to go hard political.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame them. After all it's the hoaxes that went from the family friendly fun of chain-emails warning of dead mice in every fastfood chains franchise (locations were highly dynamic...) into political news.
Re:A link to the gofundme page (Score:4, Interesting)
"Ha ha," you respond, "All politicians are equally dishonest." No, they're not. However, the more people say that and believe it, the less people will hold politicians accountable for their dishonesty. And so it will become more and more true over time.
"Every country has the government it deserves" -Joseph de Maistre
Re: (Score:2)
You are 110% correct, if you don't believe me just check snopes.
For the first couple of years they did mostly trivia and were a good read; I found out that Mr. Rogers was NOT a medal of honor winner.
Since 2000 or so they have loaded up with the most convoluted tortuous reasoning's for political items.
They may be worse than wikipedia for 'facts'.
If you send them money via gofu..me just consider whether it might be more effective to just burn your money or send it to your rich political party directly.
Re: A link to the gofundme page (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps a website devoted to debunking untruths is having a field day with trump because Alo most everything he says is simply untrue?
https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a27302269/congratulations-donald-trump-has-managed-to-tell-10000-lies-since-taking-office/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/04/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/29/washington-post-president-trump-has-made-10-000-false-claims/3615505002/
https
Re: (Score:2)
We were a little shocked when Trump visited the UK and tried his usual gaslighting on us, e.g. calling the protests "fake news" without further explanation. It must be extremely strange to live in a country lead by someone who habitually lies about trivial things all the time, relentlessly.
Re: A link to the gofundme page (Score:5, Informative)
It simply did not (quite) rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. (an actual crime)
Mueller left open for congress to investigate 10 separate instances of possible Obstruction of Justice.
Mueller was not 'allowed' to indite a sitting president.
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller was not 'allowed' to indite a sitting president.
The what the hell was he doing for two years!?! Why was he investigating a "crime" that wasn't a "crime" which he couldn't charge anyone for?
Once again, a leftist talking point that makes absolutely no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller was not 'allowed' to indite a sitting president.
The what the hell was he doing for two years!?! Why was he investigating a "crime" that wasn't a "crime" which he couldn't charge anyone for?
He was doing exactly what he was originally asked to do -- investigating the situation for Congress. Congress gets to decide what to do with the President, not Muller.
Once again, a leftist talking point that makes absolutely no sense.
Your ignorance is not his fault.
Re: (Score:2)
He told Don McGhan to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. McGhan ignored this request.
That's some weak sauce. He was the head of the Executive branch, and as you've demonstrated, has the power to fire people if he really wanted to. Once again, pitching a hissy fit behind a closed door is NOT obstruction of justice.
He later ordered McGhan to go to the press to deny that he had made that request. McGhan refused.
You're now wanting to call a politician lying to the press obstruction of justice. You do realize that we're going to have to hold new elections, because you just completely emptied DC, right?
The nearest example we have is Clinton. He lied about a blowjob to a grand jury, which
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton is a horrible person, but a little known fact is that there was no perjury under the court's definition of "sexual relations". Starr wanted to use a definition so broad that walking onto a crowded subway car meant you'd be having "relations" with a dozen people. Clinton's lawyers objected, and so the court used a more limited definition - one that did not include receiving blow jobs.
Special prosecutors pervert our entire justice system. DA's need
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to suggest that your categorization of the perjury/obstruction issue is understated at best. Amusingly, here is the snopes article [snopes.com] on the subject. Some notable points from said article are that Clinton's law license was suspended for five years and he was fined $25k in a deal to avoid criminal charges for lying under oath (perjury to you and I) and that he was fined $90k for contempt for lying under oath (perjury, to you and I) by the judge in the Paula Jones case.
Special prosecutors pervert our entire justice system. DA's need probable cause to start looking at you, and can't use it as an excuse to indict your friends, family, and people you've never heard of for things that have nothing to do with the original suspected crime.
On this, we agree entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
So moving the goal posts, is it?
The claim was that Trump obstructed Justice. You challenged for any instances of such a crime. Multiple instances were then identified. To which you replied that it is impossible for a President to Obstruct Justice.
Certainly the President can change up his staff and appointees as he pleases for a huge variety of reasons. There are however also reasons for which you should never, or at the least not admit to, firing someone for. And Trump could have fired Comey for quite a num
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather than writing such a lengthy post why not just simply write: "I haven't read the Muller report" and be done with it? You could use the extra time to watch Fox and Friends.
Have you read the Steele Dossier? The Steele Dossier was the primary evidence for the Mueller Special Counsel.
There's one huge problem: Michael Cohen was not in Prague.
Think about that: Michael Cohen was not in Prague.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you got nothin. You're pulling a Bari Weiss, [informatio...house.info] robotically repeating talking points you can't actually back up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think everyone is deranged it may be time to start looking in a mirror.
or don't and release the Trump Kracken (Score:2)
If Snopes goes down the Kracken wins.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great website to quash internet hoaxes, and disinformation. It looks like they need our help to keep up the fight :
https://www.snopes.com/support... [snopes.com]
Do you have some inside information that sheds light on who is right? Because if Proper Media is correct, Snopes would only need your money due to gross financial mismanagement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know you won the debate when people end up with a copy-paste ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
With not an investigative nor journalist credential among any of them.
That gives them greater credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, reading that Snopes article, they're damaging their own credibility.
From the article on Snopes itself:
What's True
YouTube star Blaire White did get into an altercation over her red "Make America Great Again" hat when she went to an anti-Trump protest on Hollywood Boulevard.
What's False
Police said White and her boyfriend initiated the altercation by crossing an LAPD dividing line meant to keep opposing sides separate to prevent violence.
What's Undetermined
Later in the video White has a drink thrown in her face; it's unclear if this was staged.
So they're purporting to fact check whether she was attacked for wearing a hat. She wore the hat, she got attacked.
They claim that her being attacked is a lie and uses that to justify a fact checking rating of 'Mixture', based on "she walked near some people".
Sorry but if I walk past people wearing a hat I do not expect them to attack me. If I walk up to them to hear why they disagree with me I do not
The more things change (Score:1)
They more they remain the same [forbes.com]
I just prefer a little more sunshine in so-called fact checking websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Courts have the power to order secrecy and can and will sanction those who talk to the press because the court of public opinion is not where cases should be tried. This leads to situations where years (or even decades) pass where those involved simply can't say anything to provide "sunshine". Add to this things like divorce settlements, NDAs, or whatever, and it's a complete mess. Seriously, this whole situation started precisely because the co-Founder ex-wife sold her stake in Snopes to a company that,
Re:The more things change (Score:5, Informative)
This is the grand reveal that eight paragraphs lead up to. Snopes guy won't risk severe legal repercussions to spill dirt for a pearl-clutching gossip columnist, so the gossip columnist has a fit of the vapours.
I went looking for what ideological motives drive this guy's hate boner for Snopes, and discovered he's just a run-of-the-mill self-promoter with a sketchy history. From Leetaru's wikipedia article:
Didn't read too paywalled... (Score:2)
Hey, buddy, your crap link is paywalled! Please provide us with one that doesn't harass me about subscribing or turning off my adblock, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, buddy, your crap link is paywalled! Please provide us with one that doesn't harass me about subscribing or turning off my adblock, thanks!
Step 1: Turn off javascript. You should now see a blank page.
Step 2: Turn off CSS. In Firefox that should be View->Page Style->No Style. You should now be able to view all the text.
This should work on any ADA-compliant website, which includes most news sites.
Partners split (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the linked article makes shows that the root cause of all of this was Dave's divorce from his first wife, Barbara, which was finalized in 2015. They co-founded Snopes in 1994, and fast forward to 2015 they had a 50-50 ownership in Snoopes. After the divorce, the ex-wife was approached by a vendor that Snopes was currently using, seeking to buy her 50%, which she sold to the vendor.
So the vendor ended up being a 50% owner of the parent entity that owns Snopes, with David owning the other 50%. The rest of the story turns on business partners squabbling over how money is spent, and where the crux of the matter lies.
Bottom line is that if you own a business 50/50 with your wife and you then split, unless there is something that stipulates how the ownership is going to work after the divorce (IANAL, so I don't even know the legal things you could even do, maybe nothing at all), either side could sell their interest in the business, and not necessarily to the benefit of the other partner. David could have bought out his ex wife, but may have been unable to due to the cost or other reasons.
This would be akin to being in business with a partner, and having a falling out with the partner, causing the partner to sell their interest to someone else, who the remaining partner may not like.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand, his ex did some pretty bad things, like moving to another state in the middle of the night and taking all their money and declaring all their assets to be in her name. Her selling the shares to this company was just another way to say "screw you".
The company that bought his ex-wife's share just wants to take full control of everything and just kick Dave out without paying him a cent, basically treating him like his ex-wife did. He has been pretty successful in court, but it is addit
Re: (Score:2)
Guess he shouldn't have cheated on his wife with a prostitute. If he had divorced his wife before sleeping with a prostitute, she might have been more cooperative. The fact that he proceeded to marry one of those prostitutes probably made her feel a little vindictive.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone close to you ever get a venereal disease from their cheating spouse? Adultery is no better than rape. The guy ought to be stoned to death.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is, you cheated on your spouse, and you like to justify what you did to yourself, and you expect society to tell you that what you did isn't really that bad?
Re: (Score:2)
If your partner never feels the duty to put out, do you have the duty to become celibate for life? This applies to both men and women.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't some celebrity recently call out for wives to stop putting out as a political control tactic?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Alyssa Milano. She took a break from the MeToo movement to defend handsey, hair sniffing Uncle Joe, [foxnews.com] and took a break from that to call for a female sex strike in response to new abortion bans being passed in places like Alabama. Which is completely asinine, given the fact that there are more pro-life women in Alabama than pro-choice men, and the ban was introduced by a woman in the state house, and th
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading that and thinking, "Wow. So, first they get rid of the baby killers, and then because Alyssa Milano, they get rid of the promiscuous sluts. Go Alyssa!"
I wonder if she appreciates the irony?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that was Aristophanes, and "recently" was 411 B.C. [wikipedia.org]
So on a geologic time scale, pretty recently.
More rational to cash out now (Score:1)
Since the owners can't get along, they should mutually agree to sell the site. If they keep it they'll just continue to squabble.
Once a milquetoast President gets in, demand will go down such that now is the best time to sell. I expect that to happen because selected Presidents tend to "correct" the perceived main weaknesses of the prior one. W was to correct the horn-dog reputation of Bill, O was to correct the win-war-at-all-costs mentality of W, T was to correct the alleged neglect of the rust-belt*, and
You get the house and the car (Score:3)
I get the website.
Re: (Score:1)
And nobody gets the street cred, because we're auctioning that off to whomever catches our fancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, more like the woman gets the house, the car, the kids, half of the website and half of your future income. Lawyers get half of what's left after that.
Checking that (Score:1)
...Snopes is an objective fact checking site.
FALSE.
Fact-Checking Website? (Score:5, Informative)
One egregious example is their 'fact checking' on provocateur Nathan Phillips: Did Nathan Phillips Falsely Claim He Was a Vietnam Veteran? [snopes.com]
In it's fact-checking Snopes acknowledge the existence of a video where Phillips clearly states "I'm a Vietnam vet". They also freely admit Phillips was never deployed to Vietnam. You would think at this point they will conclude that it's true and call it a day. But this goes against their agenda so after eight paragraph worth of torturous argument they conclude that it's unproven.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical since Snopes says the CNN video was selectively edited and also that there was an error in the transcription.
The video wouldn't play for me.
Even IF Snopes got this wrong, they've been a reliable source for years and these personal squabbles the owners has doesn't really make them less credible in my view than any other site.
How are that kid's $250 million lawsuits coming along?
Re:Fact-Checking Website? (Score:4, Insightful)
Phillips clearly states "I'm a Vietnam vet"
Nope. He states "I'm a Vietname era vet". Meaning that he served during the same time as the Vietnam war was going on, but not actually in that war (but elsewhere).
But this goes against their agenda so after eight paragraph worth of torturous argument they conclude that it's unproven.
Which it is. Although during these 8 paragraphs, they still allow for the possibility that he has introduced this misunderstanding intentionally (""). Hardly giving him a blanket absolution.
It’s difficult to determine at this point whether Phillips has deliberately misrepresented the nature of his service, whether he has been so vague and ambiguous in many of his descriptions (unintentionally or otherwise) that misinterpretations have entered his narrative, or whether he has tried to be accurate but may have just occasionally slipped up in his many, many hours of conversation and sometimes neglected to include the qualifiers about his service that he has used in many other videos and press interviews. Nonetheless, at times it has certainly sounded as though Phillips was trying to foster the impression that he had both served during the Vietnam War and had been deployed to Vietnam at some point during his service, even if he didn’t literally say so.
Looks like a fair analysis to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets talk about whether the snopes site should regarded as completely false now with this amazing revelation you found:
See how you lie there? Just changing a few key words, just a little semantic juggling, and you completely change the argument. Nobody claimed the site to be "completely false". The claim is that they are "completely unreliable". If someone lies ALL THE TIME, they are completely reliable while also being completely false. If someone is truthful ALL THE TIME, they are completely reliable while also being completely true. The way to be deceptive, and the practice Snopes employs, is to to the truth most o
Independent legal analysis and court transcripts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and why is that exactly? because the site uncovers and exposes the bullshit spewed by faux news channel and the viral nonsense spread by whackos?
No, pretty much exactly the opposite... Sometimes there are reasonable perspectives you can take in light of the actual facts, but in order to arrive at the truth, one must be in command of all the relevant facts. Snopes has, from time to time, been found to omit relevant facts, typically based on a political ideology's choice of what the relevant facts actually are. IF one bills themselves as a "fact checker" you simply cannot filter possibly relevant facts, and when it is called to your attention, you m
Re: trash over trash selling trash flavored trash (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com]
Professional fact checking really should be at ISO-9001 level of quality. While Snopes.com doesn't claim to be ISO-9001, they truly fail to be open about their basic structure. When close to half of the population doesn't trust your business model, you have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The leftist kind. They funded a porn-star that took money to shut-up, and then renegged, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump could say he lost weight and CNN would say that he "actually lost mass". Remember when some weird-ass definition of unemployment crawled out of the woodwork when Trump mentioned the unemployment rate? As far as the average person in concerned, if you are an adult, not retired, and without a job, you are unemployed.
So stay at home parents are unemployed? Hobbyists who work from home? People who volunteer and are supported by others?
There's a good reason why "unemployed" means "actively seeking work." It's just a more useful metric.