Let’s have a little chat today about sources and fact checking. I’ll be the first to admit that there have been times that I have posted inaccurate information on the internet. Example – I posted a statement about the NSA deleting their group/team/task force that had the purpose of preparing the US for a pandemic. I stated it was eliminated by Trump, when in fact, it was eliminated by Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton. I should’ve used the term “Trump Administration”, which would’ve been more accurate.
I then cited an article with a fact-checking service, Snopes.com. The response I received from a Facebook connection is that Snopes is a known left-wing source. Basically, he didn’t address the individual points made in the article, he simply attacked the site and its credibility.
You know what, I’ve done the same thing. I’ve come across posts from certain right-wing internet sites, and blown them off because they peddle in fiction.
Snopes, however, is a fact checking service.
Let’s say I do a quick search on “reliable fact-checking web site”. The first article that popped in my search engine is this link right here. It’s an opinion piece about the best fact-checking sites, and Snopes is at the top of the list, followed by FactCheck.org, Hoax-Slayer.net, Politifact.com, and Truthorfiction.com.
Interesting group of fact-checking sites. But it’s an opinion piece, right?
How about we simply take a look at the four fact-checking services and what they have to say about Snopes?
Factcheck.org – I checked this link here. Factcheck wrote this:
“In 2009, we addressed Snopes.com’s alleged political bias and wrote that we found the website’s work to be “solid and well-documented,” and that its articles appeared “utterly poker-faced” when tackling rumors about Democratic and Republican politicians.
We also noted at the time: “We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.”
At no point did we ever “expose” the myth-busting website as “an extremely liberal propaganda site with an agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.”
That false claim was made in a meme that began circulating on Facebook and other platforms in February. Several of our readers have asked us about it.”
I guess it’s safe to say that Factcheck thinks Snopes is legit. That’s one…
The next one on the list is Hoax-slayer.net. I tried searching on “snopes” and “snopes.com”, and did not find any relevant articles, so if you do find an article on that site that refers to the validity of snopes, ping me in the comments. I’d like to know what you found there.
Following that unsatisfying foray, I checked Politifact. When I searched Politifact for information on Snopes, there was not an article about Snopes, but I did connect to 19 stories on Politifact’s site that used Snopes as a reference. After that little revelation, I went back and took a look at Hoax-slayer.net, and, wouldn’t you know it, Hoax-slayer.net cited Snopes in multiple stories as well.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you’re using Snopes as a source, and you are trying to run a site with some credibility as a fact-checking service, you must hold Snopes in high regard… or else you wouldn’t use Snopes as your source, right?
Lastly, there is Truthorfiction.com. I remember this well, as years ago I had a coworker tell me that Snopes was a lefty site financed by George Soros and the DNC to support Barack Obama… and that I should use a more reliable fact-checking service like Truthorfiction.com.
I then went to that site and looked up their stories on Snopes… and they had this to say:
Re: “Snopes Exposed as CIA Operation Designed to Spread Disinformation-Fiction!” – There’s no evidence to support claims that the CIA created Snopes to spread disinformation and to counter independent websites that are critical of the agency.
The rumor first surfaced in October 2016 on the conspiracy-minded website The Wayne Madsen Report. The Snopes CIA report, which is hidden behind a paywall, takes issue with Snopes’ referral to the website a “disreputable web site.” The only “proof” provided in the report is the statement that “Nothing says ‘CIA’ more than Snopes.com’s description of legitimate news reports of CIA director John Brennan being a Wahhabist and Saudi sympathizer as ‘bogus.’
Re: “Snopes CEO Arrested on Fraud, Corruption Charges-Fiction!” –
Summary of eRumor:
A report that Barbara and David Mikkelson, the founders of Snopes, were arrested on fraud and corruption charges has gone viral.
The Truth:
Barbara and David Mikkelson have not been arrested on fraud and corruption charges.
A fake news website called The People’s Cube started that rumor with a story that appeared under the headline, “Snopes.com CEO arrested on charges of fraud and corruption.” According to the report:
LOS ANGELES, CA – Snopes.com owners Barbara and David Mikkelson were detained by police today after an unrelated investigation of a Snopes.com editor lead police onto a paper trail of corruption, bribery, and fraud at the very heart of the fact-checking organization.
Evidence obtained by police has revealed that Snopes.com, which markets itself as “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation,” has a history of accepting money and favors from left-leaning and pro-Islamic political groups and individuals for helping them to advance their cause by rigging public discourse with selective fact-finding and deliberate manipulation of public opinion.
The story goes that police followed a paper trail to Barbara and David Mikkelson after a Snopes editor lashed out a flea market vendor in Los Angeles for playing the song “Dixie’s Land” because of its ties to the Confederacy and Old South.
The story was shared thousands of times, but it’s a work of fiction.
Re: “Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic party to promote Barack Obama-Fiction!” –
Summary of eRumor:
An eRumor about
Snopes.com accusing them being owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.
The Truth:
In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was “in the tank” for presidential candidate Barack Obama.
As with many forwarded emails, the criticism did not include any example of what the writer of the email claimed was the difference between what Snopes.com reported and what Barack Obama had actually said.
Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.
We can give a unique perspective on this story because we do the same kind of work as Snopes.com and have sometimes been the target of similar criticism.
We’ve got a collection of emails that have come to TruthOrFiction.com accusing us of being “right wing whackos” as well as “liberals” and “communists.” We’ve been suspected of being owned and operated by both Republicans and Democrats. We’ve been called “Christian propagandists” as well as “atheists pretending to be neutral.” We occasionally receive emails that have elaborate theories about who “really” owns us and what our “real” motives are.
The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don’t like the truth you’ve reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did.
That, in our view, is what is happening with Snopes.
The 2008 presidential campaign has been one of the most intense and unique in our nation’s history and has prompted more political eRumors than any presidential campaign in our experience, especially about Barack Obama.
These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him.
One of the versions of the eRumor mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we’ve had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.
Snopes Exposed?
In August 2010 this rumor morphed when President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. An August 4, 2010 World Net Daily article alleged that this was a political payback for several cases questioning the President’s citizenship that were denied by Kagan. Snopes reported that these allegations were false. Shortly after that inboxes were flooded with emails with the subject header “Snopes Exposed!” alleging that they lied about their findings to protect Obama. TruthOrFiction.com also investigated this rumor and found that World Net Daily released the story but the filed court cases did not question the President’s birth records.
World Net Daily corrected the story and posted a comment that said, “An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.”
I’m going to stick with Snopes.com as a fact-checking service for now. No one has provided a convincing argument as to why Snopes should be avoided. Even when there is a point to be made, it’s usually about interpretation, and considering the volume of articles they have to go through, I think their mistakes are well within the margin of error.
Wow… that was a long one.
Enough for now. I hope the world treats you better than you deserve.
Peace y’all.
