SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

opsspec1991

Active member
CHeck out who's behind Snopes, George Soros and you'll find out some terrable things.

April 5, 2010 by Johnny Alamo

If you’re like me, the first thing You did when you received an e-mail saying that the moon was full of UFOs or that President Obama was a Kenyan trained Ninja assasin, you went off to SNOPES.com to see what the deal was with those crazy e-mails. And for the most part, SNOPES has been a reliable informant on the truth about these Urban legends.
Or . . . apparently not. I began to notice that Snopes was taking more of a Leftist tack with things I obviously knew to be true, and was unwilling to revise their opinion when things went more for the right-wing than the lefties. This message board post HERE agrees, especially when it comes to politics; and especially lefty politics.
(And just in case this Message Board post “disappears,” I’ve reprinted the post in toto so it will be archived. Should the author have any problems with that, they can contact me and we’ll fix it post-haste; but as of this printing they haven’t responded to my e-mails.)
For those of you that think snopes is god when it comes to knowing the truth or not. By the way you might want to check this out on snopes.
I present this for your own evaluation.
Who “Snopes” are was written up in READERS DIGEST and agrees with this account.
(no politcal bias was mentioned in the article).

SNOPES EXPOSED

For the past few years Link Removed has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of Snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
Yet, Snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.
Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.
Link Removed or Link Removed

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.
A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me aboutSnopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.
 
I never cease to be amazed how old "news" regularly pops up here as breathless recent revelations. (I think I first saw this "news" in 2006 or 2007). That the Snopes owners may (or may not) have "leftist" (defined, as usual, as "anything not extreme right") political leanings is irrelevant and hardly makes their excellent website a "hoax."
 
I never cease to be amazed how old "news" regularly pops up here as breathless recent revelations. (I think I first saw this "news" in 2006 or 2007). That the Snopes owners may (or may not) have "leftist" (defined, as usual, as "anything not extreme right") political leanings is irrelevant and hardly makes their excellent website a "hoax."

while their site may not be a hoax, it is tainted and is not always a credible source of info
 
Interesting discussion. It points out that pretty much any information your receive has a slant. If you agree with the conclusions, you are less inclined to attempt to source the information thereby avoiding the complication of discovering the information is false or at least loosely based in fact. Conversely, one is much more likely to ignore or seriously research information contrary to one's current opinions.

From a science standpoint, researching the source and validity of all information is necessary in order to asses the degree of validity.

From the political science standpoint, researching your opponents opinion helps one to discredit it. However if you find it has more validity than your own, you may be inclined to change sides.

From the Tea Party standpoint, and the Gun Rights standpoint, we have to present valid, easily validated information that, if our opponents choose to verify it, may cause them to convert to our side of the opinion fence. Not that I would want Feinstein or Bloomburg on our side, but we can cut down on their minions.
 
Wow, so there are still people out there who believe, "if it's on Snopes, it must be true!"

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Wow, so there are still people out there who believe, "if it's on Snopes, it must be true!"

Sent my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Just like everything on Faux Snooze is anything near accurate or "Fair and Balanced" Personally, I'll trust info from Snopes over Faux anytime.
 
I never cease to be amazed how old "news" regularly pops up here as breathless recent revelations. (I think I first saw this "news" in 2006 or 2007). That the Snopes owners may (or may not) have "leftist" (defined, as usual, as "anything not extreme right") political leanings is irrelevant and hardly makes their excellent website a "hoax."

Some call it old news, I see it as history, the kind worth repeating.

And unfortunate as it for some, politics does affect our daily life. Proof? Two words; political correctness. It's not proper to use BLANK, it's BLANK now...

Snopes like Wikipedia can not be used as trusted sources, once they allowed their "balanced" reporting become tainted, its gone. Their trustworthiness has become questionable no matter how much they try to redeem themselves. They crossed the line and became editorials, which is another way of saying opinions, which like everyone, has a-holes.
 
With just about any source, if you agree they are spot on, if you don't they are questionable. In my opinion I like Fox News. Are they 100% spot on? No, the fact that Obama and the left oppose them says something.
 
Just like everything on Faux Snooze is anything near accurate or "Fair and Balanced" Personally, I'll trust info from Snopes over Faux anytime.

faux news says more than enough about you, I suppose you think the rest of the old line alphabet media is telling the truth? how about MSNBC?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,530
Messages
610,684
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top