Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 417 posts

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#81

Post by qkqk »

nsizx wrote: post #10
m0llusk wrote: post #9

Snopes provides references and reasoning. It can be wrong, but the references can be checked by anyone interested in a subject. If Snopes were relying instead on because I said so then this might make sense, but it isn't. Maybe previous experience with fakery may have contributed to inspiration for a fact checking service?

You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative.

Remind me of their narrative again? They say that

> "Trump did not explicitly tell people to 'storm' or 'breach' or 'break into' the [US] Capitol."

and included the reasoning that

> the president called on supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” march or walk to the Capitol

...but wait, their far-left narrative! Why didn't they omit those references and reasoning?!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor...

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#82

Post by JohnTHaller »

gruez wrote: post #63
JohnTHaller wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possible scenario that's not evil: If they get something wrong and correct it, people that don't believe the correction can pass around links to the archive.org version before the correction. Not saying I agree with the decision or that's why they did it, just a possible reason.

Why is that a bad thing? It's clearly marked as an archive. I'm also not sure how that fixes the problem, considering that people could still pass around images, which are pretty much taken as seriously as the real site.

I didn't say it was. I was just guessing at a possible reason they might have done it. I've seen anti-vax folks pass around archive.org links as well as pictures of stuff that was taken down/corrected before.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#83

Post by bobthechef »

The notion of "fact checker" is semantic slight of hand meant to give such people an undeserved veneer of special credibility beyond the weak credibility of journalists. It lulls people into a false sense of security. "He's not a journalist. He's a FACT CHECKER. Oooo, trustworthy!" It's an arrogant title that arrogates the supposed authority to check facts and offer pronouncements on them.

All journalists, for example, are supposed to verify their claims (they don't, but that's a dereliction of duty). But here comes the "fact checker". "Stand aside, you unwashed masses. I have special access to the truth that you don't have! I have the means of verifying claims that go beyond the paltry powers of the journalist. I am...the FACT CHECKER MAN!"

The point is that the fact checker does not transcend the journalist. Investigative reporters are "fact checkers" but without the Ministry-of-Truth title of "fact checker" that's supposed to shut down conversation and ram through the "fact checker's" preferred narrative and accounting of the "facts".

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#85

Post by nradov »

Borgz wrote: post #77
nradov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I don't know how long they have been doing this for, but the two Snopes articles that this article links to use the rating "Labeled Satire", which seems accurate.

Snopes altered those pages when they got called out for it.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#86

Post by smnrchrds »

dfee wrote: post #36
rglover wrote: post #22

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.

> I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias

Could you please elaborate? I have never seen them described like this.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#87

Post by ceilingcorner »

Outsourcing reality checks to private organizations is a serious problem with 21st century America.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is another similar org that is treated as authoritative yet has zero safeguards or unbiased processes.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#88

Post by TheTester »

qkqk wrote: post #72
dfee wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? So you think Trump was wearing his pants backwards at this rally? 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!

Bias is definitely not the same the same as actually lying and even though snipes lies every once in a while it is mostly just biased

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#89

Post by goatforce5 »

jethro_tell wrote: post #60
jjcon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about AP and Reuters?

Back when we had small town journalism, you'd get AP or Reuters as a service to be your world/national news department. The service was that they would give you a whole news department and you could copy paste the article and have your tiny news room writing about the basketball win and the bake sale. That was the deal, but it's a subscription service for one. Secondly, the AP or Reuters got the by line in your paper…

I think it's fairly common to take a wire article and change/update it with original reporting.

For example, the current main article on The Guardian's website is:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/13/taliban-seize-...

which has a byline of:

"Luke Harding and agencies"

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#90

Post by frumper »

majormajor wrote: post #70
h_anna_h wrote: post #46

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/

What do you think the errors are? The first one says "definition of 'convicted terrorist' is fuzzy, here are the specific convictions, which are different from what was claimed, which were dropped charges" which seems accurate for a "mixed" review - if the words you use are literally incorrect, how can you expect to have them reviewed as "true" even if you think it's a technicality. If they have a "mostly true" then…

You're very much quibbling on the definition of terrorist. She was convicted of having hundred of pounds of explosives while being an active member of a group that did bomb government buildings is good enough for most people to colloquially agree that is she is a convicted terrorist.
Post reply on HN