Snopes

Diver43Diver43 Senior MemberPosts: 7,334 Senior Member
Do you believe Snopes? Why/why not?
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5

Comments

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 13,548 Senior Member
    It can't possibly be ok because it's run by a couple of liberals....at least that's what I heard...on the internet...
    Actually they are pretty useful for debunking rumors, urban legends, etc.....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,794 Senior Member
    edited April 7 #3
    People are going to believe stupid stuff no matter what, as long as it reinforces their world view, no matter how flawed it may be. Truth has ceased to exist or at least matter for at least the past decade or so, and it's only getting worse. It's sad, but hard to see a future that anything other than tribal warfare between opposing factions ignorant fools who are 100% convinced their fantasy world is reality.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 7,334 Senior Member
    I used to use snopes to check quotes and stoies, seemed most of the time they were right. But this last few years they have leaned further left on opinion and less fact  in my opinion anyway
    Sadly @alphasigmookie seems to be more right than wrong in his comment
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 13,548 Senior Member
    How can a "fact" lean left or right? It's either true or not....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 7,794 Senior Member
    edited April 7 #6
    Jayhawker said:
    How can a "fact" lean left or right? It's either true or not....
    Reality has a well known left wing bias (now where is that smiling with no tooth emoji on the new forum?)
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,278 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:
    It can't possibly be ok because it's run by a couple of liberals....at least that's what I heard...on the internet...
    Actually they are pretty useful for debunking rumors, urban legends, etc.....

    A couple of Canadian liberals! Seriously, I used it quite often and was satisfied with their accuracy. Some time ago they "improved" the website and it was difficult to use. I hope that never happens here. Oh! Wait!
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 7,334 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:
    How can a "fact" lean left or right? It's either true or not....
    Easy, they say something is true or falso or mostly one or the other.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 282 Member
    Who snopes, snopes?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    edited April 7 #11
    Let us start with this one...
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/
    It asks if President Trump revoked background checks for mentally ill people. Their answer is "Mostly True". That is rubbish and Snopes really dropped the ball there. Mentally ill or not, everyone purchasing a firearm through an FFL is obligated to a background check. They phrased their question wrong. Next, and what I think they were trying to explain is that Trump somehow enable 75,000 crazy people to now buy guns. First off, this was an Obama era rule change that was prevented from going into effect. The rule was shot down by the House and Senate with bipartisan support. Trump then signed it.

    So that is what happened. Why? I am sure some of you will ignore these two links since they are "junk left wing sites" so you can go in the corner and stew in your ignorance-- I don't want to hear your crap. I have had it. But for the rest of you, these links explain very well why shooting down this rule was a good idea and the idea that Trump is somehow letting crazy people have guns without background checks is nonsense....
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-parkland-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama-liberty
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way?redirect=blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    Second link...
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trump-say-community-college-13th-grade/
    Snopes is spot on and they give you links to the sources to show why this is ignorant libtard lying crap. Only a moron would claim that the fake tweet is true in the face of the evidence presented above. Wherever this fake tweet was reported as "news sources" needs to be reconsidered by the person going to those sites.

    What happens is that these "news" sites are for profit businesses. Their goal is to make money and the truth has nothing to do with it. The way they generate revenue is to tell people what they want to hear. Because people feel good about themselves by having their biases confirmed, these sites generate this crap also keep their consumer$ coming by making claims that those "other places" are right wing liars and you can't trust them. In the mean time, people forfeit their duties as informed citizens by letting someone else do their thinking for them.

    Third link...
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/david-hogg-on-campus-rumor-hoax/

    Note my remarks to the second link but replace "libtards" with "conservatards". They are two sides of the same coin and one is no better than the other. The funny thing is they hate each other so much but are essentially the same.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    Note my remarks to the second link but replace "libtards" with "conservatards". They are two sides of the same coin and one is no better than the other. The funny thing is they hate each other so much but are essentially the same.


    THANK YOU!

    Choose your slavery, America. Two sides of the same coin indeed!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 499 Member
    I hardly ever read any news on line. If I do, I have plenty of salt grains in reserve and on hand.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    I hardly ever pay any attention whatsoever to the news. If I do, I have plenty of salt grains in reserve and on hand.
    FIFY. It'd be funny, except its not...

    I don't trust any of it anymore.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it, you may shoot it. If you shoot it, you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you. --Jeff Cooper
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    Back in the day, you had one or two local newspapers and 3 TV stations to bring you the news. Now there are hundreds of sources at any given time and they all want you as a consumer to generate those ad clicks to pay their bills. Some will say anything to get you to go there, then they will lie to keep you there.

    To answer the question, "Do you believe Snopes? Why/why not?" I would have to answer that like anything else out there, it takes some critical thinking, but if done with that in mind, it can be a useful tool because they do do a good job of embedding the links from where they came to the conclusions that they did and you can evaluate their assessment based on the quality of the information that they used. Snopes is never an excuse to not think. I have showed above how they are both right and wrong and  that they will defend both Trump and those Parkland kids. Writing the site off as simply "liberal" and moving on... I expect more from you guys. You are better than that.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 499 Member
    edited April 7 #17
    A book I read about Winston Churchill said he was a prolific editorial author and made his living as such. It and a couple of other nonfiction works described a time and place where news stands contained literally hundreds of periodicals that offered readers in depth editorial comment on everything happening in the world. Im not computer or internet savvy, but as far as can tell it's a very poor advancement.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    And back then, the consumers purchased the content based on the quality and reputation of the material-- they insisted on better because they had to reach into their pockets and shell out for it. Now that most of it is free, the quality has diminished and their revenue is generated by site clicks. It is a different business model today.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 499 Member
    Like maybe using tv as a model had failed the business and the consumer.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 7,334 Senior Member
    I find it sad that we can not even totally believe even the video we see on the news.  They cut and splice, voice over, drop words and sentences and just plain put out false information and call it fact.  I wonder if Walter Cronkite's famous sign off:  "And thats the way it is"  is how it really was?
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 9,677 Senior Member
    There are hundreds of ways to slant a report, with degrees of subtlety that range from the ridiculous to the barely detectable. SNL does it under the guise of comedy skits, Hollywood does it and claims artistic license or that they had to use 'composite characters' (Oliver Stone's favorite excuse) The major media does it by omission, or they report it wrong, loudly, then whisper the correction. Snopes does it with understatement and omission. In my opinion, they often soft-peddle the 'admissions' that make the left look bad, and report straight news when it makes the right look bad. It is subtle enough that it can't really be called unfair, but it is often sufficient to understand which side of an issue they favor. In other words, they have a default position that is left of center, but they will report facts that contradict that position, on occasion.

    In Snopes' defense, it is very difficult to report on a subject that you have an honest opinion about, without coloring it in favor of your personal beliefs. I suppose that we have to settle for bare facts that answer a question, regardless of context, and use our own wits to determine whether those facts are the complete story. This is the very reason that corroborating evidence is required to back up witness testimony, in legal proceedings, and why prosecutors presenting a case for indictment are required to also provide the exculpatory evidence that they are aware of. They routinely get away with not doing that, because it is hard to prove, but they are in trouble if it is proved. There is no such requirement against slanting a news report.

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 21,548 Senior Member
    In the past I've caught Snopes in a few instances of blatant lying on one subject, nuclear power, and specifically the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants. To be fair, I had information that they were not privy to nor allowed to see, at the time they wrote their article. Even if it had been available, I doubt their ability to read the technical reports as a full knowledge of how the plants work was required to understand the reports. That reason alone is the reason so much bullbutter about both accidents still exists.
    A double action revolver is a semiauto firearm. It fires once for every trigger pull.



  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    I will say that I go to Real Clear Politics quite a bit to read political stuff. They tend to do a decent job of linking news stories with various points of view. Quite often, they will link a story with a liberal viewpoint and the next one below it will be the same subject but from a conservative viewpoint.

    On the subject of Snopes, RCP just introduced their own Fact Check Review. They consolidate 6 of the major fact checkers and go over them. This is brand new as of this morning and I haven't really had a chance to check it out, but it may be a decent tool (or it may suck) in the quest to find the truth...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 21,548 Senior Member
    I will say that I go to Real Clear Politics quite a bit to read political stuff. They tend to do a decent job of linking news stories with various points of view. Quite often, they will link a story with a liberal viewpoint and the next one below it will be the same subject but from a conservative viewpoint.

    On the subject of Snopes, RCP just introduced their own Fact Check Review. They consolidate 6 of the major fact checkers and go over them. This is brand new as of this morning and I haven't really had a chance to check it out, but it may be a decent tool (or it may suck) in the quest to find the truth...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/

    Poked around that site for a while. It appears to have some GOOD fact crosschecking and links sources used for their conclusions. It could be a useful tool to find out the truth, or at least go to the sources listed and form your own opinion.
    A double action revolver is a semiauto firearm. It fires once for every trigger pull.



  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 5,640 Senior Member
    As a whole, we (not just here, I'm talkng people in general) need to do a MUCH better job of vetting sources that produce news stories we "agree" with.  When did agreement become a necessity in reported news?  What is the point in consuming only news that that is nothing more than an echo of beliefs I already hold true?  The funny part is that when somebody starts railing on about "Libtard" this, or "lying demoncraps" that... I pretty much ignore anything they have to say after that even though there's a good chance we'll agree on at least something. The same goes for the reverse.

    It hasn't always been that way for me, but that's how I approach things now... 
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,302 Senior Member
    Snopes is an OK source for verifying online news reports, but I look at them as a liberal source and try to determine if their ideology is being injected into their answers on political subjects.
    Political correctness is a liberal degrading of the freedom of speech. George Orwell's 1984 famously incorporated the notion of limiting thought through language (see Newspeak)." Meanwhile, the beatings will continue until morale improves around here.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    edited April 17 #27
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at everything from a critical viewpoint. I encourage it highly. Rejecting it outright without any consideration is what gets to me. Even in the most biased liberal/conservative opinion piece, there is usually some nugget of truth somewhere that they are basing that opinion on. I find it interesting how they twist that and then act like it is reality.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 13,766 Senior Member
    This link gives basic tips to help sort through some of the crap published online.

    http://www.realclearlife.com/media/6-rules-thinking-like-cia-analyst-beat-fake-news/

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file