PDA

View Full Version : Does Snopes.com have a liberal bias?


BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 03:39 PM
I've read mutters-and-whispers to that effect on some messageboards (never this one). Mainly because Snopes is always debunking RW spam emails, like this. (http://snopes.com/politics/military/navyseal.asp) (Such emails, BTW, often come from a highly organized source. (http://chrishayes.org/articles/new-right-wing-smear-machine/))

But I didn't realize until recently how widespread and bitter and highly-developed was the meme. Just go on FreeRepublic and enter "snopes" in the search-box, you'll be amazed. (http://freerepublic.com/tag/snopes/index?tab=articles) The idea is that Snopes is funded by, and a mouthpiece for, perennial RW bete noir George Soros.

Which Snopes denies: (http://snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp)

Because snopes.com is all about rumors, it was only a matter of time before rumors began to circulate about it and its operators, such as the following:

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators, Barbara and David Mikkelson, and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization.

Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections, register an affiliation with a U.S. political party, or donate to any U.S. political campaign or candidate. David Mikkelson is an American citizen whose participation in U.S. politics has never extended beyond periodically exercising his civic duty at the ballot box. As FactCheck confirmed in April 2009, David is a registered independent who has never donated to, or worked on behalf of, any political campaign or party. The Mikkelsons are wholly apolitical, vastly preferring their quiet scholarly lives in the company of their five cats to any political considerations.

And FactCheck agrees with Snopes. (http://factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/)

Anyone care to argue the contrary?

Lumpy
05-13-2012, 03:47 PM
I've read mutters-and-whispers to that effect on some messageboards (never this one). Mainly because Snopes is always debunking RW spam emails, like this. (http://snopes.com/politics/military/navyseal.asp) (Such emails, BTW, often come from a highly organized source. (http://chrishayes.org/articles/new-right-wing-smear-machine/))

But I didn't realize until recently how widespread and bitter and highly-developed was the meme. Just go on FreeRepublic and enter "snopes" in the search-box, you'll be amazed. (http://freerepublic.com/tag/snopes/index?tab=articles) The idea is that Snopes is funded by, and a mouthpiece for, perennial RW bete noir George Soros.

Which Snopes denies: (http://snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp)



And FactCheck agrees with Snopes. (http://factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/)

Anyone care to argue the contrary?They got to FactCheck too!!! (:D)

Musicat
05-13-2012, 03:51 PM
So now a liberal bias suggests falsehoods?

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 03:52 PM
They got to FactCheck too!!! (:D)

[enters "factcheck.org" in the FreeRepublic search box]

. . .

Son of a bitch! (http://freerepublic.com/tag/factcheckorg/index?tab=articles) :eek:

Half the results are threads attacking FactCheck; the other half are threads citing it!

Leaper
05-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Not wanting to visit FP for the sake of my blood pressure, but...

In what way do they suggest the bias is reflected? Do they dispute their facts? Do they say they pay more attention to debunking liberal-affecting falsehoods than conservative-affecting ones?

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 04:05 PM
Not wanting to visit FP for the sake of my blood pressure, but...

In what way do they suggest the bias is reflected? Do they dispute their facts? Do they say they pay more attention to debunking liberal-affecting falsehoods than conservative-affecting ones?

For the most part, the thread-starter simply asserts it and everyone agrees. Any mere instance of Snopes or FactCheck debunking some RW meme or a public statement by figure like Sarah Palin is enough to start a thread.

astro
05-13-2012, 04:05 PM
I'd say no.

The problem is that whether intentional or just by random chance there is huge pipeline of anti-Obama, anti-democratic etc. stories and articles that circulate in emails, blogs, message boards and social media posted as factual information. If they are ambitious enough like the Birthers they will even push their claims into mainstream media.

There are numerous conservative venues where this stuff is a good chunk of their content. Given that the vast majority of political BS debunkings are of this river of Republican bullshit it's only natural that when Snopes takes these things apart and shows they are BS they only option they have is to vilify the site doing this, and they only method they have to do this is to tell more lies (ie Snopes is liberal, funded by Soros etc.) .

pseudotriton ruber ruber
05-13-2012, 04:06 PM
OK, I'll say it and get it done with: reality has a well-known liberal bias.

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 04:07 PM
And here's (http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/03/snopes_factchec.html) something from "MommyLife" which charges Snopes, FactCheck, and Wikipedia with liberal bias.

Farmer Jane
05-13-2012, 04:16 PM
If by "liberal bias" you mean "truth", sure. :cool:

But the real question is why we let Jews continue to run these fact-checking cites. Barbara and David? I mean, what do we look like??

They aren't Jewish, btw, but a plug into Google shows it's a common 'complaint'.

Interesting: The Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com) also suggests you check out The Straight Dope.

edit: If the majority of their time is devoted to debunking viral emails, perhaps it looks like it has a left tilt because right-wingers are more likely to blow up your inbox with junk. My personal opinion, of course.

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 04:33 PM
\edit: If the majority of their time is devoted to debunking viral emails, perhaps it looks like it has a left tilt because right-wingers are more likely to blow up your inbox with junk.

Why is that, I wonder?

(No, I don't.) (http://thenation.com/article/new-right-wing-smear-machine?page=full)

Marley23
05-13-2012, 04:37 PM
I've never seen evidence of one. But I've seen them accused of bias plenty of times by people who were upset someone was tearing down their internet nonsense.

Bozuit
05-13-2012, 04:43 PM
In my experience/opinion, rumours of "shocking" things with no evidence tend to gain better traction in the right wing community. I'd guess this is partly because in general left wing philosophy is less judgemental. Therefore you're more likely to see chain mails and rumours etc. about Obama's secret commie plots or the EU secretly trying to take over Britain. As a result the right provides more fuel for Snopes to debunk.

Also, again in my experience/opinion, the right tends to be quicker to claim "bias" if they don't like what they read/hear anyway.

GIGObuster
05-13-2012, 04:56 PM
I have also seen more recent examples of e-myths that use Snopes to give you a false sense of security, there are emails that even end with lines like: "This is true!!! Snopes did confirm it!! Check it for your self!!!

Of course, when one does check we find that what the email claimed was pure baloney. Unfortunately many do not check, the creators of the email are counting on the laziness and gullibility of many to keep the emails circulating.

Bryan Ekers
05-13-2012, 05:00 PM
Well, they've deconstructed various misconceptions about Bush43, Bush41, Palin and Dan Quayle, as I recall. When a Republican next gets the White House, enough crap will be circulating about them to keep snopes busy.

guizot
05-13-2012, 05:17 PM
The notion that there can be some kind or pure, entirely unbiased voice in any type of public discourse is fundamentally flawed, and when this idea is invoked, it usually is an ideologically driven conceit itself. Hence the knee-jerk term "liberal bias," which doesn't require any reference, as Brain Glutton points out above (post #6).

The utterance "liberal bias" alone is a self-sufficient proposition for negating anything one doesn't like.

Little Nemo
05-13-2012, 05:45 PM
And here's (http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/03/snopes_factchec.html) something from "MommyLife" which charges Snopes, FactCheck, and Wikipedia with liberal bias.This suggest there's an open niche in the marketplace of ideas - or, in this case, the marketplace of "ideas".

RightFacts - the conservative alternative to Snopes. Unlike those liberal rumor sites, RightFacts doesn't debunk conservative glurge. Instead, RightFacts confirms that these rumors are "true".

I'd start the site up myself and probably make a fortune doing it. But then I think about the people I'd have to hang out with. So it's not for me. But anyone else want to use this idea, go ahead and just mail me a share of the profits.

Farmer Jane
05-13-2012, 05:59 PM
edit: If the majority of their time is devoted to debunking viral emails, perhaps it looks like it has a left tilt because right-wingers are more likely to blow up your inbox with junk. My personal opinion, of course.

Why is that, I wonder?

(No, I don't.) (http://thenation.com/article/new-right-wing-smear-machine?page=full)

Did you forget the rest of my post? How convenient and perfect for this thread.

The Man With The Golden Gun
05-13-2012, 06:24 PM
Snopes may have a liberal bias or it may not, but even if it does, its liberal bias is vastly smaller than Free Republic's conservative bias.

But a site can be accurate, biased or not. Snopes is generally accurate even if it does have a slight bias. Free Republic on the other hand....

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 06:32 PM
Snopes may have a liberal bias or it may not, but even if it does, its liberal bias is vastly smaller than Free Republic's conservative bias.

Well, that's not a fair comparison; a fair comparison to FR would be Democratic Underground.

The Man With The Golden Gun
05-13-2012, 06:37 PM
Well, that's not a fair comparison; a fair comparison to FR would be Democratic Underground.

Democratic Underground?

DeptfordX
05-13-2012, 06:41 PM
They got to FactCheck too!!! (:D)

It's Turtles all the way down

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 06:41 PM
Democratic Underground?

Democratic Underground. (http://democraticunderground.com/)

Free Republic. (http://freerepublic.com/tag/*/index)

Compare and contrast.

Dewey Finn
05-13-2012, 06:53 PM
This suggest there's an open niche in the marketplace of ideas - or, in this case, the marketplace of "ideas".

RightFacts - the conservative alternative to Snopes. Unlike those liberal rumor sites, RightFacts doesn't debunk conservative glurge. Instead, RightFacts confirms that these rumors are "true".

I'd start the site up myself and probably make a fortune doing it. But then I think about the people I'd have to hang out with. So it's not for me. But anyone else want to use this idea, go ahead and just mail me a share of the profits.
See the Doonesbury strip of 11 March 2012 (http://gocomics.com/doonesbury/2012/03/11) (and the week of 6-11 February), describing a (fictional, of course) business called MyFacts that offers emerging definitions that align with their clients' emotional needs.

The Man With The Golden Gun
05-13-2012, 07:00 PM
Democratic Underground. (http://democraticunderground.com/)

Free Republic. (http://freerepublic.com/tag/*/index)

Compare and contrast.

Took a look at Democratic Underground, which I'd honestly never heard of before. I do see what you're saying now.

I know about Free Republic, but I'd rather not go there, since my day has been bad enough as it is.

cornflakes
05-13-2012, 07:06 PM
I'll second the sentiment stated above: Snopes is liberal only to the extent that a lot of right wing spammers are liars.

Snopes has been around since 1995. This is the first accusation that I've heard of their having a liberal bias.

Lumpy
05-13-2012, 07:09 PM
You doubt the Reds are taking over? Maybe you're a Red!

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 07:12 PM
You doubt the Reds are taking over? Maybe you're a Red!

Back in the '50s, the John Birch Society thought Eisenhower was a Communist. (As you can read in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, (http://amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581) by Rick Perlstein.)

Kolga
05-13-2012, 07:48 PM
A quick view at the "Politics" section of snopes reveals subcategories for George Bush, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rick Santorum, John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitt Romney. An even quicker look at a few of those subcategories indicate trues and falses in almost every category.

It appears to me that snopes is an equal-opportunity myth-destroyer, and its conservative critics don't like that because...I dunno. All conservative myths about liberal politicians must always be true, while liberal myths about conservatives must always be false?

supery00n
05-13-2012, 08:27 PM
I think it definitely does - and I count myself as a progressive (with a lower case p). That's one of the great things about StraightDope - I see almost no politicization of issues that are fact-oriented.

GIGObuster
05-13-2012, 10:51 PM
I think it definitely does - and I count myself as a progressive (with a lower case p). That's one of the great things about StraightDope - I see almost no politicization of issues that are fact-oriented.

:dubious:

I take it that you have never participated in intelligent design/creationist vs evolution, climate change threads uh? :)

It should not be, but sadly; in America at least, those fact oriented subjects are politicized.

BrainGlutton
05-13-2012, 11:05 PM
I think it definitely does - and I count myself as a progressive (with a lower case p). That's one of the great things about StraightDope - I see almost no politicization of issues that are fact-oriented.

Where do you see that on Snopes?

Chen019
05-14-2012, 12:58 AM
Don't think so. Just the other day I saw it confirming the truth of a story about a Bain employee thanking Mitt Romney for helping to save his daughter's life (http://snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp).

FriarTed
05-14-2012, 02:13 AM
Back in the '50s, the John Birch Society thought Eisenhower was a Communist. (As you can read in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, (http://amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581) by Rick Perlstein.)

Technically, it was Robert Welch in his book The Politician who made that claim. When I was a member in the 1980s, it was understood within the JBS that one could be a member without buying into that.

Bryan Ekers
05-14-2012, 06:08 AM
:dubious:

I take it that you have never participated in intelligent design/creationist vs evolution, climate change threads uh? :)

It should not be, but sadly; in America at least, those fact oriented subjects are politicized.

No, some posters try to politicize these issues on this board, and the majority of replies are not "You're wrong because you're a bourgeois dinosaur" (or similar label-rhetoric) but "You're wrong because of <cited fact 1> and <cited fact 2> etc.".

The American angle (though it is not exclusive to them, of course) is that fact-citing gets less traction than it should, and to some is even a negative: "Oh, I dunno what your east-coast liberal college taught you, but in the real America...." as though there existed a portion of America that was immune to science by virtual of being more "real" than science can handle.

The board members who are determinedly immune to fact-based arguments on specific issues get reputations as such, and are quite fortunately in the minority.

Bozuit
05-14-2012, 12:53 PM
No, some posters try to politicize these issues on this board, and the majority of replies are not "You're wrong because you're a bourgeois dinosaur" (or similar label-rhetoric) but "You're wrong because of <cited fact 1> and <cited fact 2> etc.".

The American angle (though it is not exclusive to them, of course) is that fact-citing gets less traction than it should, and to some is even a negative: "Oh, I dunno what your east-coast liberal college taught you, but in the real America...." as though there existed a portion of America that was immune to science by virtual of being more "real" than science can handle.

The board members who are determinedly immune to fact-based arguments on specific issues get reputations as such, and are quite fortunately in the minority.

A couple of years ago I read a piece on the BBC website about this. It was asking why so many low-income Americans were so against Obama's healthcare policies (to the point of hatred) when they were the ones set to gain the most from it. Essentially the conclusion was that a lot of people prefer "stories" to facts, and they feel talked down to when someone comes up with statistics saying how much better something is. In the end a lot of people prefer anecdotal evidence to hard facts, and the right tends to be better at catering to those people. I can't help but think if we could change this the world would be a much, much better place.

al27052
05-14-2012, 02:07 PM
IMHO, extremists of all types tend, by the very nature of extremism, to be less...fact-oriented that moderates.

Given this as a general rule, it's pretty easy to see that, in a mostly-conservative country like the US, the most fact-averse crazies are going to be the conservatives.

I would guess, without loads of proof at hand, that, in Communist countries, the opposite is true.

I think that rates of violence among the two extremes in a given country are also pretty indicative of which way that country leans, politically. In the US, the more violent political group tends to be the conservatives. As we can see from the former USSR and China, the most violent people in those countries were generally the opposite.

Or, as Mark Twain said, "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reconsider."

al27052
05-14-2012, 02:10 PM
A couple of years ago I read a piece on the BBC website about this. It was asking why so many low-income Americans were so against Obama's healthcare policies (to the point of hatred) when they were the ones set to gain the most from it.

I'd say the reason that most poor whites are against it is because they feel that African-Americans have disproportionately benefited from welfare, and they think this is more of the same. I think the main reason that poor whites are so against helping African-Americans is that poor whites tend to, on average, have less education, and uneducated people tend to be more racist, on average.

I really don't think that poor blacks are particularly against nationalized healthcare.

Fotheringay-Phipps
05-14-2012, 02:14 PM
ISTM that they have a slight liberal bias in that allegations which are partially true are labeled as false when they are about Obama, and labeled as partially true when they are about others.

But I could be wrong - it's a slight lean and it's a subjective matter.

[But I should also note that the fact that the Mikkelsons are not active in politics (or American, in the case of Barbara) doesn't mean that they don't hold opinions about polical matters.]

YogSothoth
05-14-2012, 03:53 PM
Yeah, reality has a liberal bias, so there you go

Fotheringay-Phipps
05-14-2012, 05:07 PM
Oldie but goodie. I guess.

BrainGlutton
05-14-2012, 05:45 PM
Technically, it was Robert Welch in his book The Politician who made that claim. When I was a member in the 1980s, it was understood within the JBS that one could be a member without buying into that.

I understand the JBS is still around -- but, post-Cold-War, who is their bete noir now? Islamic Jihadists?

BrainGlutton
05-14-2012, 05:46 PM
A couple of years ago I read a piece on the BBC website about this. It was asking why so many low-income Americans were so against Obama's healthcare policies (to the point of hatred) when they were the ones set to gain the most from it. Essentially the conclusion was that a lot of people prefer "stories" to facts, and they feel talked down to when someone comes up with statistics saying how much better something is. In the end a lot of people prefer anecdotal evidence to hard facts, and the right tends to be better at catering to those people. I can't help but think if we could change this the world would be a much, much better place.

I wonder if that's a matter of human nature, which can't change, or culture, which can.

BrainGlutton
05-14-2012, 05:51 PM
In the US, the more violent political group tends to be the conservatives.

Or, Eliminationists. (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533537) (Meaning, those who earnestly want their opponents . . . eliminated. Almost entirely RW, in American history. Haven't heard of any LW eliminationists 'round here since the '70s; unless you count environmentalists so extreme they wish the whole human race including themselves would die, and those are vanishingly rare.)

BrainGlutton
05-14-2012, 05:53 PM
I'd say the reason that most poor whites are against it is because they feel that African-Americans have disproportionately benefited from welfare, and they think this is more of the same. I think the main reason that poor whites are so against helping African-Americans is that poor whites tend to, on average, have less education, and uneducated people tend to be more racist, on average.

Even though at least half the people on welfare are white, and it's always been that way, AFAIK.

Algorithm
05-14-2012, 05:59 PM
ISTM that they have a slight liberal bias in that allegations which are partially true are labeled as false when they are about Obama, and labeled as partially true when they are about others.

Example?

Bozuit
05-14-2012, 08:48 PM
I'd say the reason that most poor whites are against it is because they feel that African-Americans have disproportionately benefited from welfare, and they think this is more of the same. I think the main reason that poor whites are so against helping African-Americans is that poor whites tend to, on average, have less education, and uneducated people tend to be more racist, on average.

I really don't think that poor blacks are particularly against nationalized healthcare.

Well yes I think it was mostly referring to whites, but I'd guess there are a lot more poor, white Republican supporters than poor, black Republican supporters. It was a more general point anyway - that a lot of people don't just ignore facts, they rebel against them.

I wonder if that's a matter of human nature, which can't change, or culture, which can.

I think it's a bit of both. But I hope there is more actual thinking going on than there was, say, 500 years ago, which suggests it's mostly culture that will hopefully be erased eventually.

The Other Waldo Pepper
05-14-2012, 09:03 PM
I have also seen more recent examples of e-myths that use Snopes to give you a false sense of security, there are emails that even end with lines like: "This is true!!! Snopes did confirm it!! Check it for your self!!!

Of course, when one does check we find that what the email claimed was pure baloney. Unfortunately many do not check, the creators of the email are counting on the laziness and gullibility of many to keep the emails circulating.

Those are interesting claims; can you supply any such e-mails that so referenced Snopes? (Or your evidence that "many do not check" Snopes thereafter?)

Jas09
05-14-2012, 09:16 PM
Those are interesting claims; can you supply any such e-mails that so referenced Snopes? (Or your evidence that "many do not check" Snopes thereafter?)At least half of the crazy right-wing e-mails I get from my Grandfather make claims of veracity referencing snopes.com. Here is one I got 7 days ago:
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.

WONDER WHY?

Subject: HR 4646

Be sure to read entire explanation

Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.

A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.

Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??

Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!

This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA).

YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.

Ask your congressperson to vote NO.

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.

President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your own bank from one account to another, will have a 1% tax charged.

If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check in to your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.

If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.

Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.

Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"!

Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal?




The following is copied from Snopes:

1. snopes.com: Debt Free America Act•••
Is the U.S.government proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?
...It is true. The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. Their plan is to sneak it in after the...
...moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the...
...[2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction...
Wed, 02 Nov 201111:27:37 GMThttp://snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.aspOf course if you actually go to Snopes the e-mail is plainly labeled FALSE (the bill existed, but nobody supported it other than it's creator - certainly not Obama or Pelosi). I can easily post more if you want to read more crazy. :)

Jas09
05-14-2012, 09:20 PM
Here's another snippet from one I got about a month ago (which is basically jsut a repackaging of one from 2008):Obama's Air Force One (WAIT! Who's AFO?)

INCREDIBLE!!!

He has turned Air Force One into a campaign slogan carrier...
Not only the Obama Campaign logo on the tail, but it bears his Campaign Slogan and removing the American Flag!

<snip>

If you have doubt about this message, check it out at SNOPESOf course, at Snopes (http://snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp), it is also marked as FALSE.

samclem
05-14-2012, 09:21 PM
I have also seen more recent examples of e-myths that use Snopes to give you a false sense of security, there are emails that even end with lines like: "This is true!!! Snopes did confirm it!! Check it for your self!!!

Of course, when one does check we find that what the email claimed was pure baloney. Unfortunately many do not check, the creators of the email are counting on the laziness and gullibility of many to keep the emails circulating.

I could if I had the time to go check my emails from my mom the last five years. While I have them archived, it would be a bit tedious looking for those.

I can just tell you the GIGO had it right. I think that it was a bit more pronounced about 1-3 years ago. They don't seem to do it as much the last year. But it was certainly true a few years ago.

Jas09
05-14-2012, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I overstated the prevalence. I currently have around 1,000 e-mails archived from him and only 21 have the word "snopes" in them. So they still exist, but not as much as they used to (I clear out the archive every year or so).

Bozuit
05-14-2012, 09:26 PM
I despair of humanity when I read emails like these.

GIGObuster
05-14-2012, 09:33 PM
I could if I had the time to go check my emails from my mom the last five years. While I have them archived, it would be a bit tedious looking for those.

I can just tell you the GIGO had it right. I think that it was a bit more pronounced about 1-3 years ago. They don't seem to do it as much the last year. But it was certainly true a few years ago.

Yep, and thanks for the support guys, I see that TOWP still can not believe that perfectly good advise can be turned into a lie depending on the context.

"If you have doubt about this message, check it out at SNOPES" is indeed a double lie when used in that way, it actually dulls a good number of people into believing the maker of the note is telling the truth. It is just the same as Lord Monckton and many climate change deniers when they say at the end of their presentations that "you should not just trust me, check the evidence"; sadly, many do not.

Bryan Ekers
05-15-2012, 01:11 AM
For that matter, it's akin to holocaust deniers who throw in pleas to "just show me the evidence, just one little bit of proof", suggesting that they are indeed open to such and this reasonable request has consistently been left unsatisfied. Of course, what they really want is to plant the suggestion that no real proof exists so even if the reader does goes looking, he has a preconceived notion that all holocaust documentation is fake.

Spud
05-15-2012, 01:17 AM
The funny thing is that this has been an accusation since the very early days of snopes (early 90's). So much so that the "old regulars" had a special forum (the pool... had to click on a period in one part of the welcome page IIRC) at the time and referred to themselves as the SLC (Secret Liberal Cabal). The joke was that we were far from a "cut from one cloth" group of people. I was one of the old regulars, and one of the first members of the SLC... and I'm a conservative from the mid-west.

The forum still exists in some form but is now just a general MPSIMS type of of forum.

BrainGlutton
05-15-2012, 01:29 AM
For that matter, it's akin to holocaust deniers who throw in pleas to "just show me the evidence, just one little bit of proof", suggesting that they are indeed open to such and this reasonable request has consistently been left unsatisfied. Of course, what they really want is to plant the suggestion that no real proof exists so even if the reader does goes looking, he has a preconceived notion that all holocaust documentation is fake.

Much of what we claim to know about the Holocaust comes from the Nuremberg trials . . . The senior generals of the Allied powers must have been either in on the hoax or duped by it . . . I can't decide which makes less sense.

The Other Waldo Pepper
05-15-2012, 08:49 AM
Yep, and thanks for the support guys, I see that TOWP still can not believe that perfectly good advise can be turned into a lie depending on the context.

The "perfectly good advise" isn't a lie; it's what folks given such an e-mail should do.

"If you have doubt about this message, check it out at SNOPES" is indeed a double lie when used in that way, it actually dulls a good number of people into believing the maker of the note is telling the truth. It is just the same as Lord Monckton and many climate change deniers when they say at the end of their presentations that "you should not just trust me, check the evidence"; sadly, many do not.

It's indeed sad that many do not, but what makes it sad is that "you should not just trust me, check the evidence" is true. I merely conclude that more people should follow Jas09's example instead of disregarding the "perfectly good advise".

FixMyIgnorance
05-15-2012, 08:55 AM
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Bozuit
05-15-2012, 08:58 AM
I advise we use the noun "advice" from now on.

GIGObuster
05-15-2012, 09:53 AM
I see that even the word "context" does not exist for some posters. Once again, it is the charlatans surrounding good advice around misleading information is what makes it a lie. (And for the 100th time: it is good advice)

Like Brian Ekers said, what the charlatans out there want is to plant the suggestion that they have the support of the evidence, so even if the reader does goes looking, he has a preconceived notion that the version of the charlatan is the truth.

Indeed, I was going to say that before I claimed that the end result of the good advice in the words of a charlatan is to prove the charlatan to be a liar twice over like in the case of Monckton; in my case with the Snopes item, I knew already that even on Snopes that misleading tactic was reported to be used already, Jas09 demonstrates that I was telling the truth, the information was already out there and I actually did remember being it mentioned before on the dope and Snopes, it is not impossible to check for the information, the bottom line is that I was not worried to be confirmed correct by others (This is the important bit, that others do demonstrate an ability to search for information, it is really silly to claim in this age of Google that one has to rely on just a single poster on the internet).

What I do know is that deniers like Monckton are not afraid of the ones that do check elsewhere because they do know that many will continue to not do the checking part.

http://skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-reality-part3.html

Bryan Ekers
05-15-2012, 09:54 AM
I advise we use the noun "advice" from now on.

Oh, a wice guy, huh?

Bryan Ekers
05-15-2012, 10:11 AM
Like Brian Ekers said, what the charlatans out there want is to plant the suggestion that they have the support of the evidence, so even if the reader does goes looking, he has a preconceived notion that the version of the charlatan is the truth.

Well, other people were saying it first, I was just pointing out a variant.

Version 1: I believe something is true because of evidence and support (i.e. from Snopes), which I expect at least some of you will take my word does exist and will repeat my claim.

Version 2: [the one I pointed out] I believe something is false because of a lack of reliable evidence and support, which I expect some of you will take my word does not exist and will repeat my claim.

I was reminded of the latter by a poster here just in the last few weeks who, before he was banned, parroted the old denier mantra: "Show me some evidence, just one piece of evidence!" He didn't want evidence, wouldn't know what to do with it. What he wanted was other people to start saying "Yeah! Where is the evidence?"

Musicat
05-15-2012, 10:39 AM
Version 1: I believe something is true because of evidence and support (i.e. from Snopes), which I expect at least some of you will take my word does exist and will repeat my claim.

Version 2: [the one I pointed out] I believe something is false because of a lack of reliable evidence and support, which I expect some of you will take my word does not exist and will repeat my claim.Very Well Put.

Not only must you repeat my claim, but because the evil and corrupt news services won't report it, YOU MUST SEND IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!!!!!

Jas09
05-15-2012, 10:58 AM
For awhile it was in vogue to put a disclaimer at the top too. Something like "If you're a liberal that hates America don't read this. Just delete it now. Your (sic) too blinded to see the truth". Maybe they thought that would keep people from sending debunking responses.

astorian
05-15-2012, 03:30 PM
In my opinion, the Mikkelsens ARE liberals, and their political opinions regularly seep into their work.

I STILL think they're generally ACCURATE, which is far more important to me than being unbiased.

The same holds true for most media outlets. The New York Times is DEFINITELY biased... but if they print a front page story reporting that, say, one of my favorite Republican politicians took bribes, I'll almost always assume the Times story is factually correct.

So, MOST of the time, I'll accept a report from the Mikkelsens, since I USUALLY assume they've done the proper diligent reasearch. When I disagree with them, it rarely has anything to do with their political slant. rather, I think they're sometimes too quick to make categorical assertions that their own research doesn't quite justify.

bup
05-15-2012, 03:52 PM
In my opinion, the Mikkelsens ARE liberals, and their political opinions regularly seep into their work.David is not a member of a political party, but when he was, it was Republican (http://factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/).

Mr. Miskatonic
05-15-2012, 04:22 PM
The freepers are just butthurt from the Clinton days when they were trying to spread the 'Clinton Death List' around at every corner and snopes was the biggest quick way to stop the nonsense. Freepers get mighty whiny when their fantasies fall apart, which is all the time.

Fotheringay-Phipps
05-15-2012, 05:03 PM
I STILL think they're generally ACCURATE, which is far more important to me than being unbiased.

The same holds true for most media outlets. The New York Times is DEFINITELY biased... but if they print a front page story reporting that, say, one of my favorite Republican politicians took bribes, I'll almost always assume the Times story is factually correct.What's insignificant for one story might be significant in terms of the overall impact.

Suppose the NYT had a regular policy of reporting Republican bribe-takers on the front page while burying stories of Demoratic ones. That would create a distortion of the relative honesty among the two parties, even if each individual story was accurate.

The Man With The Golden Gun
05-15-2012, 05:19 PM
For awhile it was in vogue to put a disclaimer at the top too. Something like "If you're a liberal that hates America don't read this. Just delete it now. Your (sic) too blinded to see the truth". Maybe they thought that would keep people from sending debunking responses.

I always like it when they do that because it lets me know right from the start that the penis enlargement spam in my Trash folder would like some company.

tomndebb
05-15-2012, 05:19 PM
What's insignificant for one story might be significant in terms of the overall impact.

Suppose the NYT had a regular policy of reporting Republican bribe-takers on the front page while burying stories of Demoratic ones. That would create a distortion of the relative honesty among the two parties, even if each individual story was accurate.Does Snopes have a front page?
Does Snopes have any method of "burying" Pro-Right wing stories or Anti-Left wing stories?

Claiming that someone might possibly slant their stories is not the same as providing evidence that they have. Without that evidence, I am more likely to accept the testimony of a self-proclaimed conservative such as Astorian than the mutterings from Freepers.

wevets
05-15-2012, 05:47 PM
In my opinion, the Mikkelsens ARE liberals


And what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

Would you know the difference between the Mikkelson and Father Anthony Joseph if you were to pass on the street?

Have you ever met the Mikkelsons? (I'm guessing from misspelling their name the answer is no.)

As bup already pointed out, David Mikkelson was registered Republican in 2000, and Barbara is Canadian.

Your political affiliation diagnosis sounds unreliable.

The Other Waldo Pepper
05-15-2012, 10:09 PM
This is the important bit, that others do demonstrate an ability to search for information, it is really silly to claim in this age of Google that one has to rely on just a single poster on the internet).

It really would be silly. It would be almost -- but not quite -- as silly as thinking someone made that claim. It would even be quite the straw man!

Jas09 demonstrates that I was telling the truth, the information was already out there and I actually did remember being it mentioned before on the dope and Snopes, it is not impossible to check for the information, the bottom line is that I was not worried to be confirmed correct by others

Er, yes, that's wonderful: you made a claim, so I naturally figured you could already supply support for it -- and, this being the SDMB, it's equally unsurprising that another poster swiftly did so before you lifted a finger. You're acting as if there's something remarkable about an entirely unremarkable chain of events.

GIGObuster
05-15-2012, 11:02 PM
Meh.

Now besides context also past experiences never took place.

The bottom line is that I was correct and many others (not just one poster or source) support what I say, and they show indeed something that it seems to be a miracle for you: the capacity of finding good evidence without demanding to use training wheels. :)

GIGObuster
05-15-2012, 11:20 PM
And what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

Would you know the difference between the Mikkelson and Father Anthony Joseph if you were to pass on the street?

Have you ever met the Mikkelsons? (I'm guessing from misspelling their name the answer is no.)

As bup already pointed out, David Mikkelson was registered Republican in 2000, and Barbara is Canadian.

Your political affiliation diagnosis sounds unreliable.
The folks at About.com noticed also that the meme that claims Snopes is biased to the left was, as if one should need to guess, another forwarded email from 2008 just before the election:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
It's doubly ironic that such a scurrilous attack should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year (2008) marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to Snopes.com to debunk.

Let's examine the specific accusations.

CLAIM: Snopes.com is 'owned by a flaming liberal' with a partisan bias.

First off, it's clear that whoever wrote this piece made it up as they went along. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing Snopes.com knows that the website is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of southern California. This is stated on the website and has been common knowledge for quite some time.

Second, the charge of partisanship is laid without evidence. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.

Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to FactCheck.org, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to FactCheck.org show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate" (source: FactCheck.org).

Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.

A NOTE ON GEORGE SOROS: A later variant of this rumor alleges, without evidence, that Snopes.com is financed by liberal philanthropist and hedge fund tycoon George Soros. This is false. The website is entirely self-supporting through advertising sales.

tomndebb
05-15-2012, 11:22 PM
The bottom line is that I was correct and many others (not just one poster or source) support what I say, and they show indeed something that it seems to be a miracle for you: the capacity of finding good evidence without demanding to use training wheels. :)Knock it off.

This stupid sniping has nothing to do with the topic. Take it to The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

oliversarmy
05-15-2012, 11:29 PM
I have followed Snopes for a long time. I tend to trust what Barbara and Micheal say. I have read the Straight Dope and this board longer.

I think it is safe to say that only liberals have an objective view of the truth.

tomndebb
05-15-2012, 11:32 PM
I think it is safe to say that only liberals have an objective view of the truth.I really hope that this was an attempt at irony.

oliversarmy
05-15-2012, 11:41 PM
Ill-advised irony with apologies. I will heretofore stay away from categories where I should not post.

tomndebb
05-16-2012, 12:02 AM
Ill-advised irony with apologies. I will heretofore stay away from categories where I should not post.You can post. Just remember that printed text is not always a good medium for irony.

gamerunknown
05-16-2012, 12:38 AM
And what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

They care about objective reality?

GIGObuster
05-16-2012, 01:17 AM
They care about objective reality?

Well, that is just another variation on "the truth having a liberal bias". To me it is more likely that the truth is a good number of times on the side of the "left" because of a fluke of history, if we could move the timelines of the presidents, I could see the Teddy Roosevelt administration not just thinking about defenestrating the current robber barons.

Roosevelt would see the current well to do owners of energy companies giving money to outfits that just exist to seed doubt about our current environmental problems and take no prisoners IMHO.

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/07/08/merchants-of-doubt/

And, to be on point, Snopes also took on FOX news regarding their shoddy coverage on the subject of Global Warming, just that alone is enough for many on the right to declare Snopes liberal it seems.

http://snopes.com/politics/satire/freeze.asp

Bozuit
05-16-2012, 07:46 AM
Well, that is just another variation on "the truth having a liberal bias". To me it is more likely that the truth is a good number of times on the side of the "left" because of a fluke of history, if we could move the timelines of the presidents, I could see the Teddy Roosevelt administration not just thinking about defenestrating the current robber barons.

I don't think it would be an unreasonable argument to make (not that I'm saying it's true necessarily) that the right is often more appealing to those with the least interest in "facts" (especially in countries where "morality" is a big part of the right) and so the politics of many countries is often slightly to the right of where it "should" be if you could somehow objectively compare all facts and use it to obtain the optimal balance of right and left.

I always assumed the quotation was intended as a joke but maybe there's some logic to it.

Mind you, I only thought about this for about 10 seconds.

Ludovic
05-16-2012, 08:40 AM
I always assumed the quotation was intended as a joke but maybe there's some logic to it.
Believe it or not it originated from a right-wing comment that said basically "you liberals always whine about the facts are this and the facts are that, while we on the right wing don't have to care as much about the facts because we are in power, so our policies are creating facts, new facts that you liberals will whine about."

Fotheringay-Phipps
05-16-2012, 08:58 AM
Does Snopes have a front page?
Does Snopes have any method of "burying" Pro-Right wing stories or Anti-Left wing stories?That was an example, and one which was apropriate for the NYT that Astorian referenced. The general point is that it's possible to be technically accurate about each individual story but be slanted overall. I gave a different example WRT Snopes specifically above (though as I mentioned at the time, it's just a perception, and could be off.)

Claiming that someone might possibly slant their stories is not the same as providing evidence that they have.True. Now what?Without that evidence, I am more likely to accept the testimony of a self-proclaimed conservative such as Astorian than the mutterings from Freepers.What's this about? Are you in the habit of basing your opinion on matters of this sort on the weight of testimony from Astorian and Freepers? (And if you are, then what's it worth?)

dropzone
05-16-2012, 02:58 PM
You can post. Just remember that printed text is not always a good medium for irony.I have seen Jeeves ironing Bertie Wooster's morning paper and if ironing the printed page is good enough for Jeeves, especially as played by Stephen Fry, it is good enough for me.

Buck Godot
05-16-2012, 03:36 PM
Believe it or not it originated from a right-wing comment that said basically "you liberals always whine about the facts are this and the facts are that, while we on the right wing don't have to care as much about the facts because we are in power, so our policies are creating facts, new facts that you liberals will whine about."

Here is the original quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_communityhttp://) from a GW Bush aide possibly Karl Rove.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

BigT
05-16-2012, 04:24 PM
I did at one time think I notice an anti-Christian bias there, which some (the religious right) might call liberal. Later I noticed a pro-Jesus article and realized I was wrong.

Also. I've gotten scam emails that would tell you to ask customer support if it were real, giving the real contact info.

Lumpy
05-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Here is the original quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_communityhttp://) from a GW Bush aide possibly Karl Rove.Good Grief, the neocons are Nietzscheans? :eek::rolleyes:

I'd worry more if such things as the murder of Bobby Franks, the invasion of Poland, and Gulf War II didn't show that the world is good at finding ways to kick would-be ubermensches in the balls.

Bozuit
05-16-2012, 07:39 PM
I did at one time think I notice an anti-Christian bias there, which some (the religious right) might call liberal. Later I noticed a pro-Jesus article and realized I was wrong.

Also. I've gotten scam emails that would tell you to ask customer support if it were real, giving the real contact info.

It's got to be hard to not come across as anti-Christian if you're an American website that examines the facts behind popular myths....

IntelliQ
05-16-2012, 07:59 PM
I had detected a little bit of center left attitude on a couple occasions at Snopes but no harm no foul. Everyone has some biases and no one (including Cecil on the SD) can keep it completely hidden when you do that much writing over the years.

Snopes and SD both tilt a bit left but it doesnt bother me at all. I feel their research is done in a sincere effort to answer questions or debunk myths and the results arent tainted (with the exceptional unnecessary jabs by Cecil).

The SDMB on the other-hand is mostly comprised of a pack of rabid extremists, in my humblest opinion.. :D

GIGObuster
05-16-2012, 08:09 PM
It's got to be hard to not come across as anti-Christian if you're an American website that examines the facts behind popular myths....
Looking at the religious section, most of the debunked religious myths are at the level of Jack Chick tracks, I think that even believers in the SDMB would shake their heads at those who believe in them.

http://snopes.com/religion/religion.asp

Outside the SDMB however, there are still a good number of the faithful in America that do become insulted when they see those myths debunked. (even one of the "true" ones, on the weight of souls, showed that the one doing the experiments did not follow proper procedures. It was true that some one made experiments to weight souls but that was only half of the history.


[Aside: I wonder if that is why we do not see QI in America, those fun explanations of the bible myths by Stephen Fry would generate a lot of complains.]

BrainGlutton
05-16-2012, 08:30 PM
Good Grief, the neocons are Nietzscheans? :eek::rolleyes:

"What would you like, Dick?"

"The usual, Karl. Hundreds of grandchildren, utter domination of known space and the pleasure of hearing that all of my enemies have died in terrible, highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me. And you?"

[laughs] "The usual."

tomndebb
05-16-2012, 09:35 PM
True. Now what?What's this about? Are you in the habit of basing your opinion on matters of this sort on the weight of testimony from Astorian and Freepers? (And if you are, then what's it worth?)A persistent theme in all the various "liberal press" threads around here is the presentation of opinion polls to establish the validity of the complaints. Given that basis, if I find a real live conservative noting that he finds little bias, I will weigh that more heavily than the whining of the sillies on th Far Right.

Of course, I would prefer actual evidence, but when I encounter dark hints that there is a good chance of bias but that it is just cleverly hidden, (instead of actual evidence), then I will fall back on the opinions of those on the Far Right, at which time I will select the opinions of legitimate conservatives over hysterical partisans.

What the .... ?!?!
05-17-2012, 09:49 AM
Since Brainy G has extended a special invite (twice I think), here are my two cents .....

Answer: I don't know but here's what I'd look at if I was interested:

1. Do the answers address the question thoroughly? Do they leave out any facts that render their answers incomplete and one-sided?

2. Has Snopes changed it's "mission" such that they address "urban legends" that tend to be politically one-sided rather than other things that might constitute an "urban legend".

Fun fact.....I've used Snopes two or three times to reply-all to FWDs with corrections. I'd do it more often but I don't even bother to read most of them.

What the .... ?!?!
05-17-2012, 09:56 AM
Since Brainy G has extended a special invite (twice I think), here are my two cents .....

Answer: I don't know but here's what I'd look at if I was interested:

1. Do the answers address the question thoroughly? Do they leave out any facts that render their answers incomplete and one-sided?

2. Has Snopes changed it's "mission" such that they address "urban legends" that tend to be politically one-sided rather than other things that might constitute an "urban legend".

Fun fact.....I've used Snopes two or three times to reply-all to FWDs with corrections. I'd do it more often but I don't even bother to read most of them.

I forgot to add.......... if a large majority of main players at Snopes were pretty clearly liberal or Democrat, I'd suggest that there was significant potential for bias and I'd wonder if there was a good reason why the main players didn't span the political spectrum.

One thing I wouldn't wonder about is the excuses I'd here in response from most posters.

Beware of Doug
05-17-2012, 10:53 AM
A couple of years ago I read a piece on the BBC website[...]. It was asking why so many low-income Americans were so against Obama's healthcare policies (to the point of hatred) when they were the ones set to gain the most from it. Essentially the conclusion was that a lot of people prefer "stories" to facts, and they feel talked down to when someone comes up with statistics saying how much better something is. In the end a lot of people prefer anecdotal evidence to hard facts, and the right tends to be better at catering to those people. I can't help but think if we could change this the world would be a much, much better place.You would probably have to kill God. Good luck with that.

Acsenray
05-17-2012, 11:06 AM
I had detected a little bit of center left attitude ...

Everyone has some biases ...

Snopes and SD both tilt a bit left ....

Would you distinguish between (1) someone who has liberal beliefs or opinions, which can sometimes be detected in his or her work and (2) someone whose work reflects liberal bias?

Bryan Ekers
05-17-2012, 11:11 AM
Now I'm curious: can someone link to a particularly egregious example of Snopes' alleged liberal bias?

Czarcasm
05-17-2012, 11:30 AM
I forgot to add.......... if a large majority of main players at Snopes were pretty clearly liberal or Democrat, I'd suggest that there was significant potential for bias and I'd wonder if there was a good reason why the main players didn't span the political spectrum.The two "main players" are a Canadian and a dude who was been known to vote Republican. Does that set your mind at rest?

IntelliQ
05-17-2012, 11:31 AM
Would you distinguish between (1) someone who has liberal beliefs or opinions, which can sometimes be detected in his or her work and (2) someone whose work reflects liberal bias?

Yes, but the line could be blurry sometimes. So for the most part it comes down to partisan intent,

Snopes falls into #1 and they exhibit no recognizable pattern of partisan intent. It's a damned fine site imo.

Bryan Ekers
05-17-2012, 11:39 AM
Snopes falls into #1

Is there anything in particular that leads you to believe this?

Vinyl Turnip
05-17-2012, 11:56 AM
The two "main players" are a Canadian and a dude who was been known to vote Republican. Does that set your mind at rest?

Mere window dressing for the behind-the-scenes cabal comprising former members of the Weather Underground, ACORN, and the Screen Actors Guild.

IntelliQ
05-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Is there anything in particular that leads you to believe this?
A few years back when I was into their site and soaking up a lot of their debunking pieces, I noticed a few jabs directed at the right on a couple occasions which seemed wholly unnecessary to whatever it was the articles were suppose to be focused on.. It was years ago, no cites.

If I would have noticed an unfair pattern I would have started taking notes, but like I said no pattern developed and I like what they do. I also rely on word of web to throw up red flags - and there too I dont know of any famous bloggers or news analysts accusing snopes of bias.

I've used them countless times to stop the nonsense coming from both left and right leaning friends in emails, facebook posts, etc.

What the .... ?!?!
05-19-2012, 07:49 AM
The two "main players" are a Canadian and a dude who was been known to vote Republican. Does that set your mind at rest?

Snappy comeback but if you bothered to read you'd probably realize that I'm not too concerned about it. Now, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Time...that's a different story.

What the .... ?!?!
05-19-2012, 07:52 AM
Would you distinguish between (1) someone who has liberal beliefs or opinions, which can sometimes be detected in his or her work and (2) someone whose work reflects liberal bias?

Both are examples of "bias". Had you used "agenda" rather than "bias" in #2 the distinction would be better.

Czarcasm
05-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Snappy comeback but if you bothered to read you'd probably realize that I'm not too concerned about it. Now, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Time...that's a different story.All I've noticed is that when someone comes up with evidence that goes against your baseless questions(accusations), suddenly you are "not too concerned about it" and try to cast baseless assertions in other directions.

johnpost
05-19-2012, 12:08 PM
Back in the '50s, the John Birch Society thought Eisenhower was a Communist. (As you can read in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, by Rick Perlstein.)

both Eisenhower and Khrushchev were bald, what other proof is needed.

GIGObuster
05-19-2012, 12:51 PM
both Eisenhower and Khrushchev were bald, what other proof is needed.

Even so, we still have a baldness gap!


http://npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94340197
To sum up: baldies hand off to hairies in perfect Russian synchrony. It could be a song (In fact, it now is: Click the audio link above to hear Jones' observations as a duet, accompanied by Russian musicians).

But not only does our story have rhythm, it has punch: Half of Russia's recent leaders have been bald, or nearly so.

Compare that to our own list of U.S. bald leaders: We have Ike. We have Gerry Ford. If the lighting is bad, we could slip in Warren Harding. It’s not an impressive record. We have what in Cold War days might have been called "A Baldness Gap" — and the Russians are winning.

Kobal2
05-19-2012, 01:34 PM
It's a damned fine site imo.

Shame they hired someone from the early 90s to do the design.

BrainGlutton
05-19-2012, 04:30 PM
I've even encountered a meme on other boards that the Associated Press has a liberal bias.

Dunno where that came from!

What the .... ?!?!
05-20-2012, 09:11 AM
All I've noticed is that when someone comes up with evidence that goes against your baseless questions(accusations), suddenly you are "not too concerned about it" and try to cast baseless assertions in other directions.

You couldn't have gotten that from this thread......... sounds like somebody else went in another direction to me. But that's ok....it must be tough to compete with the more intelligent left-wingers here.

The gist of your post has to do with questions I raised in other OPs about certain television media outlets and their most identifiable faces.......whether anybody thought they more represented one end of the spectrum or the other. Nothing that anyone could prove certainly, but some intellectually honest opinions would have been refreshing.

Czarcasm
05-20-2012, 09:50 AM
You couldn't have gotten that from this thread......... sounds like somebody else went in another direction to me. But that's ok....it must be tough to compete with the more intelligent left-wingers here.

The gist of your post has to do with questions I raised in other OPs about certain television media outlets and their most identifiable faces.......whether anybody thought they more represented one end of the spectrum or the other. Nothing that anyone could prove certainly, but some intellectually honest opinions would have been refreshing.The gist of my post answered your concerns in this thread about the possibility of the majority of those running Snopes being liberal or Democrat. When i pointed out the fact that it wasn't a possibility, you declared that suddenly your weren't really concerned about Snopes, but Now, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Time...that's a different story. They certainly are a different story...and they are also a different topic. Talk about a shotgun approach to argument.

Czarcasm
05-20-2012, 09:59 AM
Snappy comeback but if you bothered to read you'd probably realize that I'm not too concerned about it. Now, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Time...that's a different story.Are you accusing them of something for which you have evidence, or are you...Just Asking Questions?

What the .... ?!?!
05-20-2012, 10:49 AM
Are you accusing them of something for which you have evidence, or are you...Just Asking Questions?

What evidence would be acceptable to you?

What the .... ?!?!
05-20-2012, 10:51 AM
The gist of my post answered your concerns in this thread about the possibility of the majority of those running Snopes being liberal or Democrat. When i pointed out the fact that it wasn't a possibility, you declared that suddenly your weren't really concerned about Snopes, but They certainly are a different story...and they are also a different topic. Talk about a shotgun approach to argument.

Try reading post #95 again. You might notice that I said that I wasn't concerned but was there on Brain G's multile invitations.

Czarcasm
05-20-2012, 12:07 PM
What evidence would be acceptable to you?In this thread? None, because that isn't the topic of this thread.
In their own threads? Anything that isn't a variation of "Just Asking Questions" or "I'd tell you, but you would just dismiss it anyway, so why bother?"

Acsenray
05-20-2012, 12:55 PM
That's not to say that all purported evidence is persuasive.

BrainGlutton
05-20-2012, 04:31 PM
You couldn't have gotten that from this thread......... sounds like somebody else went in another direction to me. But that's ok....it must be tough to compete with the more intelligent left-wingers here.

The gist of your post has to do with questions I raised in other OPs about certain television media outlets and their most identifiable faces.......whether anybody thought they more represented one end of the spectrum or the other. Nothing that anyone could prove certainly, but some intellectually honest opinions would have been refreshing.

And that's what you got in those (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=650959) threads (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=651622) -- a lot of opinions more intellectually honest than yours.

What the .... ?!?!
05-21-2012, 08:56 AM
And that's what you got in those (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=650959) threads (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=651622) -- a lot of opinions more intellectually honest than yours.

Opinions that weren't related to my questions though.

....and what is intellectully dishonest about my opinion that the large majority of people hosting news or political shows on those outlets are Democrats?

BrainGlutton
05-21-2012, 10:36 AM
Opinions that weren't related to my questions though.

....and what is intellectully dishonest about my opinion that the large majority of people hosting news or political shows on those outlets are Democrats?

Your presumption that that is a problem.

IntelliQ
05-21-2012, 11:39 AM
Your presumption that that is a problem.



Of course, Brian, studies show a giant tilt towards the left, which gives a real basis to support there is left leaning bias. The internet and and youtube pile on with supporting evidence that it goes beyond the media and right into the public (http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjpWaESn_9g) school (https://youtube.com/watch?v=SErowaB4nUY) system. (The area of liberal schooling I experienced first-hand but it's for another time and topic)

Alas,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

"....a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party."

More recently,

".....it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations.[16] Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008."

"What the .... ?!?! (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/member.php?u=55339)"'s comment has a solid foundation.

GIGObuster
05-21-2012, 12:11 PM
Old news IntelliQ, reporters are in any case more professional than that and they do know who is buttering their toast.

From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:
J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:

“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”

Amazingly, that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:

In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron's economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a failure to come.

The Times economic reporter had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion:

Because “Other things came up!”

Charlie Rose, by not making any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.

More recently the issue of Global Warming does demonstrate this, there has been a huge drop of reports on the issue, inexplicable if your points there have weight in what is reported, in the end liberals do not control what corporate media does report about.

IntelliQ
05-21-2012, 12:43 PM
Old news IntelliQ, reporters are in any case more professional than that and they do know who is buttering their toast.
People do in fact sense unfair reporting. Omission mostly, but we get those youtubes and gotchya moments caught on video now and again of extremely partisan liberalsm (last one i remember was a cnn media woman covering a protest). It happens, it seems silly to argue it doesnt.


From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:
J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:

“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”

Amazingly, that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:

In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron's economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a failure to come.

The Times economic reporter had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion:

Because “Other things came up!”

Charlie Rose, by not making any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.

More recently the issue of Global Warming does demonstrate this, there has been a huge drop of reports on the issue, inexplicable if your points there have weight in what is reported, in the end liberals do not control what corporate media does report about.

Money can do funny things, I dont know of anyone who says differently. I'm not sure how this exonerates a demonstrably left wing media from biased reporting.

Lastly, (ill take this up in another thread of your choice if you want to, just message me the link so Im aware of it), I have to throw out here if the mainstream media was comprised mostly of conservatives we would see a conservative agenda. I wouldnt for a moment discount it, but that's not the case.

GIGObuster
05-21-2012, 01:41 PM
People do in fact sense unfair reporting. Omission mostly, but we get those youtubes and gotchya moments caught on video now and again of extremely partisan liberalsm (last one i remember was a cnn media woman covering a protest). It happens, it seems silly to argue it doesnt.

Money can do funny things, I dont know of anyone who says differently. I'm not sure how this exonerates a demonstrably left wing media from biased reporting.

Lastly, (ill take this up in another thread of your choice if you want to, just message me the link so Im aware of it), I have to throw out here if the mainstream media was comprised mostly of conservatives we would see a conservative agenda. I wouldnt for a moment discount it, but that's not the case.
And we do, this is a case were the problem is not bias but a faulty calibration of what the bias is, just check the documentary Spin by Brian Springer.


The myth of an adversarial, hostile and critical media is blown away here by the simple method of showing us the velveted conversations before the cameras roll. There is the pillow talk between interviewer and interviewee but there are also little asides with media advisers, particularly with Pat Robertson. The aides are most often telling whoever it is how to deal with difficult questions .

http://spinwatch.org/reviews-mainmenu-24/246-video/4209-spin-behind-the-scenes-manipulation-of-mainstream-news

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353

What I do think is related to the matter at hand is that just like Snopes there may be a bias, but the problem is that many are not aware of what the bias is, in the current environment in the mainstream media mostly right of center or centrist ideas are considered, truly left leaning ideas are given the short end of the stick.

BrainGlutton
05-21-2012, 02:39 PM
Of course, Brian, studies show a giant tilt towards the left, which gives a real basis to support there is left leaning bias. The internet and and youtube pile on with supporting evidence that it goes beyond the media and right into the public (http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjpWaESn_9g) school (https://youtube.com/watch?v=SErowaB4nUY) system. (The area of liberal schooling I experienced first-hand but it's for another time and topic)

Alas,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

"....a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party."

More recently,

".....it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations.[16] Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008."

"What the .... ?!?! (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/member.php?u=55339)"'s comment has a solid foundation.



I don't see any of that going to published content, and without that it is irrelevant.

What the .... ?!?!
05-22-2012, 08:22 AM
I don't see any of that going to published content, and without that it is irrelevant.

It is relevant............ unless you really, really, really do believe that professional liberal journalists don't listen to those little angels on their shoulders.


.....and how about unpublished content?

Kobal2
05-22-2012, 08:41 AM
It is relevant............ unless you really, really, really do believe that professional liberal journalists don't listen to those little angels on their shoulders.


.....and how about unpublished content?

First: learn what a fucking ellipse is, and what it's for.

Second: would that be journalists that are professionally liberal ? Or professional journalists who happen to be liberals ? 'Cause the latter is pretty much dealt with in journalism school. If you can't write/report neutrally, you don't really get to graduate.

As for unpublished content, who the hell cares what they write in their secret diaries ? Does it, or does it not colour their reporting (i.e. published material) ?

No ? Then what are you mentioning their private convictions for, if not muddle the waters and poison the well ?
Yes ? How about you produce some evidence, then ?

Czarcasm
05-22-2012, 08:41 AM
It is relevant............ unless you really, really, really do believe that professional liberal journalists don't listen to those little angels on their shoulders.


.....and how about unpublished content?Like the diaries they keep under their pillows?
edited to add: And the little angels that read them in the middle of the night?

elucidator
05-22-2012, 01:58 PM
The angel on one shoulder says "Stab! Stab him now!" The other one is more cautious, he says "Wait till he turns his back!"

Marley23
05-22-2012, 02:00 PM
The angel on one shoulder says "Stab! Stab him now!" The other one is more cautious, he says "Wait till he turns his back!"
We're discussing journalists here. The second angel would say "Wait and see if he picks up the bar tab."

BrainGlutton
05-22-2012, 08:17 PM
Watching Fox News makes you stupider. (http://thenation.com/blog/167999/its-official-watching-fox-makes-you-stupider) (Actual study.)

What the .... ?!?!
05-23-2012, 10:11 AM
First: learn what a fucking ellipse is, and what it's for.

Second: would that be journalists that are professionally liberal ? Or professional journalists who happen to be liberals ? 'Cause the latter is pretty much dealt with in journalism school. If you can't write/report neutrally, you don't really get to graduate.

As for unpublished content, who the hell cares what they write in their secret diaries ? Does it, or does it not colour their reporting (i.e. published material) ?

No ? Then what are you mentioning their private convictions for, if not muddle the waters and poison the well ?
Yes ? How about you produce some evidence, then ?

First........ No

Second......... hilarious!!!!

Third....... I should have left it at "unpublished" or "uninvestigated" or "stuff that isn't newsworthy (according to educated liberal journalists)".

Fourth........ evidence of what? I forget what we're talking about ....Snopes or Bill Moyers or David Gregory or Chris Matthews.

Czarcasm
05-23-2012, 10:25 AM
Fourth........ evidence of what? I forget what we're talking about ....Snopes or Bill Moyers or David Gregory or Chris Matthews.None of the above. Hint:Scroll up to the top of the page and read the title of the thread.

Best Topics: in the vain best latin book leftover gravy spicy cat fuck communism lighter fuck you windows deep cuts meaning zebra foal nitroglycerin pills abuse sexualy active definition 40s gangster uv light test hustler honey hooker gotjunk pricing aleve ulcer connie godfather gymnast crotch straight dope zbar undercoating answer door naked hydrazine tank american accent attractive irs illegal income peanuts in soda bowling alley costs glucosamine natural source giant tortillas ilovethefishes song stretch baseball caps detox walgreens weed storing brewed coffee courtroom typewriter heroin powder taste she likes to pop when did party lines end what size bottles does vodka come in national monument vs national park bah bah bah bah bah song how to ship a bottle of whiskey difference between alford plea and nolo contendere how many shots in a fifth of alcohol great green gobs lyrics heater coil replacement cost where do drugs go when you snort them songs about unexpected love why does the day start at midnight send paypal payment without account does 7 11 sell eggs choke up on bat allison penn and teller fool us standard soda bottle size to much cum to swallow left testicle hangs lower than right how much cash do banks hold ball drop west coast games like skyrim and fallout how much nyquil to kill you is it better to do homework in the morning or at night paul mccartney bacon number diabetes recipes for picky eaters navy versus air force buying vehicle without title shoes wear out outside heel