Forum Thread

Defending Snopes’s credibility

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    I recently came across this meme that’s more or less gone viral:

    Turns out, it’s not exactly far from the truth...

    Conservative trolls are using this to diminish Snopes’s credibility. While Snopes is still active, can we still use them to refute any future lies debunked by them? If so, why?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Thanks for the update.

    I read a note on the Snopes website a while back that they were the target of a SLAPP lawsuit.

    So was John Oliver. He won the lawsuit, but it cost him $200,000 to do so.

    Whether you call them SNAPP lawsuits or not, this is the technique that Trump has used for his entire business career, which is why he had been sued more than 3500 times.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    But doesn’t that only deflect the scandal on Trump with whataboutism? How does that defend Snopes?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Snopes is well known for its fact checking honesty. I have found them to be highly accurate. They will deal in more mundane things than just the big picture lies of Donald Trump. They certainly have been accused of favoring liberals, but any website that reports facts will catch the ire of Republicans, especially the Trumpians. I judge them by their content and not attacks on their character. I have compared their responses to those of the Washington Post Fact Check, and Politfact. Without question, Snopes holds their own. I trust them.

    Consider that "Trump as of Dec. 10 had told 15,413 untruths during his presidency, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column reported. Many of them earn four Pinocchios.

    Likewise, lists countless lies, big and small. For just 2019 here are a list of his biggest whoppers.

    Politifact also keeps track of Trump's lies.

    But if you want a comprehensive list of Trump lies, rants and other dubious things Trump says or does, go to Inferior Donald.

    There are no fact checking websites with a strictly liberal or conservative bent that I can see. Fact checking is done by all these groups, and a fact is a fact. There are no "liberal facts" or "conservative facts". The "alternative facts" of Kellyanne Conway are not facts...just made up bullshit to placate the president's moods.

    I might disagree with the "false" versus "mostly false" ratings of the fact checking organizations, but the descriptions of these organizations are generally factual...right on...the truth. I will acknowledge that Republicans living in an "alternative reality show" are incapable of recognizing the truth. They hide from it. They fear it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Is Washington post even that reliable with their ownership under Jeff Bezos?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Like the New York Times, the Washington Post has earned NUMEROUS Pulitzer Prizes, so I definitely would trust what they had to say. The New York Times has won 127, and the Washington Post has won 65.

    The Journalism school for the University of Missouri has put together a list of the most, and least, accurate news sources. Although I generally have found that liberal sources are more reliable than conservative sources, the truth is that there are good ones and bad ones, in each category.

    Breitbart is very close to the bottom, but it actually is more reliable than Occupy Democrats. Infowars is also a bottom feeder, but Trump is even less reliable.

    The best sources are British or public news sources.

    The Wall Street Journal gets high marks, even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FOX, which is rated even lower than Rush Limbaugh. Although I absolutely trust the New York Times, the Washington Post is rated even higher.