Snopes Fact Checker is Exposed as a Fraud
 

Snopes started out fact checking news of the weird and eventually tried to remake itself as a political fact checking site.  But now it has been exposed as a fraud.  The main fact checker is   Kim Lacapria, who was formerly with Inquisitr, a site known for publishing fake quotes and hoaxes.

 

http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/06/snopes...s-a-fraud/

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

Nothing to see here...just move along now.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

This is false cause snopes said so..



I said it before.. I dont put much stock into snopes.

---

Must be nice in the echo chamber. 

---

I can 100% attest Snopes is not always right. The case I can cite is what they call an urban legend which I know to be absolutely true. Not that it's a huge shocker or terribly noteworthy.


According to Snopes the rumor that Taco Bell uses meat classified as "Grade D Edible" is completely false. When I was in college I stopped eating Taco Bell. Because I was in line and saw the guy making the tacos refill the meat trough with a big bag labeled "Grade D Edible."

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Snopes says this story is false.

---

Snopes Fact Checker is Exposed as a Fraud

 

Snopes started out fact checking news of the weird and eventually tried to remake itself as a political fact checking site.  But now it has been exposed as a fraud.  The main fact checker is   Kim Lacapria, who was formerly with Inquisitr, a site known for publishing fake quotes and hoaxes.

 

http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/06/snopes...s-a-fraud/

 

 

This story should be snopes-ed. It "exposes" facts that they've put in their "about" page for years.  LOL.  Nice detective work there, dailyheadlines.com!

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

This is false cause snopes said so..



I said it before.. I dont put much stock into snopes.

 

The thing about Snopes is that in their conclusions they normally cite sources and outline their reasoning and invite people to correct them (with similarly cited sources and rationale) if they're wrong.  They admit they're not infallible (just read the disclaimers on the site).  They're right quite a bit more often than they're wrong though.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

The Drifter is just mad at Snopes for stiffing him on the fee they pay him for site hits.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Snopes has been debunked for years.

 

More liberal gar-bage

---

Right wingers resent being fact-checked. They want to live in their own alternate universe, where truth is optional.

---

Left wingers have an issue with people knowing the truth. They want to control knowledge so people can only think what they want them to think.





Did I do that right? Since we're making sweeping generalizations, I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Down the memory hole...

---

The truth isn't left wing or right wing. But way to keep the divisiveness healthy.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

it's a lady with google

---

Left wingers have an issue with people knowing the truth. They want to control knowledge so people can only think what they want them to think.

Did I do that right? Since we're making sweeping generalizations, I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.

Touche'

---

Snopes Fact Checker is Exposed as a Fraud

Hey- now this coming from the guy who has posted the most snopes articles on this message board...


180 degrees.


I remember a great 2003 article "confirming" WMDs in Iraq.

---

it's a lady with google

So? If it cited with objective evidence, who cares. It's called research.

---

So? If it cited with objective evidence, who cares. It's called research.

 

the evidence presented is often incomplete due to bias

 

plus they tell you their conclusion at the top of the article rather than the bottom after evidence is presented. this is to encourage readers to not bother looking too deeply.  just go by what we say is true or false and be done with it. 

 

it's not journalism research. it's google searching.  which literally anybody can do. that's why i say, it's a lady with google. absolutely nothing special here.

---

the evidence presented is often incomplete due to bias


plus they tell you their conclusion at the top of the article rather than the bottom after evidence is presented. this is to encourage readers to not bother looking too deeply. just go by what we say is true or false and be done with it.

Well who out there is doing it better? Honestly don't use snopes except to refute dumb crap. Like Obama isn't American or some other [BLEEP] statement. Research easily makes people in that camp look like idiots.

---