71–80 of 417 posts
Snopes lost credibility when they teamed up with Facebook
Snopes lost credibility when they "fact checked" the Babylon Bee, a site which is clearly labeled as satire and never claimed to be real news. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/31/fact-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're a sham fact checking website and they don't want a paper trail.
How is this not a better established position? I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias. Honestly, I see all those fact checking websites the same way. Which is fine, though humorously this pairs nicely with another thread on HN this morning about HS critical thinking courses around journalism, quite well.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-wear-pants-backwards...
Snopes says he wasn't, and shows evidence why. That's just "pure, unadulterated bias" though, right? His pants are on backwards?
Otherwise "I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias" would be such a broad generalization it's meaningless!
Plagiarism is wrong. It also isn't the same thing as publishing false or misleading information about the topic of the article plagiarized . In other words, the articles plagiarized don't become false or misleading because of the plagiarism.
It's misleading if it implies the plagiariser witnessed, researched, or analyzed an event, when all he did was copy someone else who did those things.
Snopes is truly disappointing and slanted. It’s early days it was a good reference tool… sadly in our divided times Snopes has clearly a political slant.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a sadly similar story. They're downright extreme nowadays.
Can someone explain what the difference between this and pulling stuff off the AP machine is? I see almost identical news articles all the time across major news outlets. My partner used to work at a company and would write all their news, spotlights and press releases. They commonly would see paragraphs taken by major news outlets without attribution. She tells me that’s just how it was. I’m not in the industry but…
Media orgs will have a commercial deal with AP or Reuters that lets them more or less cut and paste whatever they want. Here the guy got lazy and started copying filler from media without any agreement I don’t see how it puts into question any fact checking though - the guy was just taking shortcuts to build articles, by plagiarising reliable journalists
Now if the chief fact checker could lie to the people he serves, just imagine who else could lie to the people …
Snopes lost credibility when they teamed up with Facebook
Snopes lost credibility when they "fact checked" the Babylon Bee, a site which is clearly labeled as satire and never claimed to be real news. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/31/fact-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about these? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-vaccine-passport/
I agree that the first should be "YES" and the second "Mixed". The question is now whether you can find similar "right-friendly" stories that show a similar "hesitation" in the labelling. Probably you can.
Although, is it really that the question? We have known that "both sides" have been bullshitting their way for ages. It's not as if this is a secret.
The only reason that people care about Snopes having a political slant is because 1: it is popular and 2: it pretends that it is not (by being a fact checker). I am not aware of any similar popular and generally considered credible right wing site.
https://www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539576135/fact-checking-websi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of those are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz?
According to the SPLC, their addition was a mistake, and the retraction seems honest and reasonable. [0] Now, me, I like my organizations to never admit-- uh, I mean make mistakes. [0] https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video