# Do people honestly believe Snopes is biased? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 4, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654 "2016-10-04T20:19:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/41 "2016-10-06T15:25:48Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > They used to be very fact based and stick completely to only what can be verified. I’ve noticed a lot more opinion in their political articles and some conclusions I didn’t agree with. Mostly by writers named something other than Mikkelson. I don’t know when they officially expanded but sometime relatively recently they went from just debunking (or verifying) stories to creating content under their “news” tab. These stories are posted on their Facebook page frequently. They don’t get labeled as true or false and are presented as straight reporting. The contributors are sometimes good, sometimes not. Once they started to make their own content with their own “reporters” the site became less about skepticism. It doesn’t help that the contributors to those articles have jokey bios instead of real credentials. For example: > > Sure, that’s a credible source. If Snopes was researching an article and the only information about the author was that it would earn at least an “undetermined”. Kim Lacapria was a columnist for Inquistr before she started working for Snopes. She described herself as openly left wing and wronte many columns expressing her liberal views. She may or may not do a good job of hiding her liberal biases but she does have them. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/42 "2016-10-06T15:41:40Z")
When people ask for a single, specific example, don’t think of it as a pointless challenge that’s a waste of time. Think of it as an opportunity to advance a worthwhile discussion that will otherwise GO NOWHERE. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/43 "2016-10-06T15:48:32Z")
The discussion is going nowhere anyway. Imagine you’re discussing whether a dice cube is biased in favor of 6. Do you try to settle that by pointing to specific examples of it landing on 6? [And that’s even without getting into the subjectivity in this case. Dice can at least be objectively measured.] ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/44 "2016-10-06T16:05:02Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Reading _anything_ carefully is often a good idea. But you have no specific examples of bias to present… Right. When I was reading various articles I should have taken notes just for you. Somehow I didn’t foresee this thread. I used to find the site to be rock solid when it cae to the facts and over time I have noticed a shift. Not a huge shift. I still read their articles. I still use them as a source. I’m just much more careful with checking their work especially with certain writers they brought on. If you chose to dismiss my opinion so be it. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/45 "2016-10-06T16:16:39Z")
The thread on the original forum has since been locked. The other person had repeated the canard that “Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet” and I pointed out that he never made that claim and pointed to Snopes which had the actual quote. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/46 "2016-10-06T18:14:22Z")
I have relatives that insist it is biased, but they are Trump supporters anticipating a rigged election. And they believe Obama may not have been born in the USA. Let’s just say their filter for belief is poor. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/47 "2016-10-06T18:44:28Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > People do that all the time here. If I tried to use Fox news or many other sites that are perceived to have a conservative bias people on this site would dismiss it without bothering to look further. For myself, it would depend on the story. Still, Fox news does not typically source their material so it is hard to trust them completely. This is true of a lot of news outlets, not just Fox, but Fox is a bit more open in their bias than other sites. Fair and balanced my ass. > [@Clothahump](#): > > Seriously. As long as they stick to urban legends, they are okay. But there have been some incidents lately where they absolutely carry water for Hillary and her ilk. Do you have an example of this? I would like to see it. > [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Has Snopes ever done an article on themselves? Because until they do I’m going to remain skeptical of them. Specifically what would you like to see here? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/48 "2016-10-06T23:58:32Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > Specifically what would you like to see here? He would like to see two fish get caught using the same bait. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/49 "2016-10-07T01:02:34Z")
Lol. I’ve been told [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) is a biased site. The people who believe stuff like that think any site without fox news in the title is biased. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/50 "2016-10-07T01:08:48Z")
In HS I knew a sport scholarship type who tried for an entire semester to say that “Shakespeare was Ignorant”. He never convinced anyone that _Shakespeare_ was ignorant… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/51 "2016-10-07T02:11:21Z")
In my experience, when people say that Snopes is biased, they aren’t talking about a subtle lean in political affiliation, or some other indicia that Snopes is framing the facts a certain way to prove a point. Instead, it’s a more blanket excuse to not have to give something referenced on Snopes any attention at all. It’s not that they are skeptical of Snopes; more drastically, if Snopes says it, it must therefore not be true. These people are also blindly partisan, sorely lacking in reasoning skills, and fulfill numerous other unflattering stereotypes. Try as I might, I never succeed in getting them to break down a Snopes article and show me why it is unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/52 "2017-07-10T16:19:37Z")
As above, I think pointing to specific instances does not settle the matter. But I’ve come across an extremely misleading article tending to exonerate Jane Sanders. [GOP Lawmaker: Allegations Against Jane Sanders Were ‘Hearsay’](http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/07/gop-lawmaker-allegations-sanders/) > [@](#): > > In July 2017, a top Republican state lawmaker in Vermont confirmed that he was the source for allegations of impropriety concerning both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and his wife Jane O’Meara Sanders, but added that he did not realize that the “hearsay” spurred a federal investigation. > > The probe concerns allegations by state party vice-chair Brady Toensing to investigators that Sen. Sanders pressured a bank to approve an application for a $6.5 million loan his wife filed in 2010, when she was president of Burlington College. Toensig also accused O’Meara Sanders of loan fraud in January 2016, saying that she overstated the amount of donations the college received by $2 million while applying for the loan. The college closed in May 2016. > > State House Minority Leader Don Turner admitted in an interview published on 30 June 2017 that Toensig’s allegations were based on a conversation with him in May 2016. If you look at the [actual article that Snopes links to](https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/06/30/vermont-gop-official-disputes-claim-that-sanders-pressured-bank), it says: > [@](#): > > Citing an unnamed source, Vermont Republican Party vice chair Brady Toensing alleged in a federal complaint last year that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) “pressured” a bank to approve a loan application submitted by the senator’s wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders. > > But in an interview with Seven Days Friday, that source — Vermont House Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Milton) — disputed Toensing’s characterization of their May 2016 conversation and called into question Toensing’s allegation. Turner described the information he provided Toensing as nothing more than “hearsay” — and hardly evidence of wrongdoing. > > “There’s no way I’d file a complaint or anything like that,” said the Milton Republican, who has not previously been identified as Toensing’s source. > > Turner’s remarks appear to undercut the most explosive charge that Toensing, a Charlotte attorney, has leveled in recent years at the senator and his wife. \*\*But they don’t directly contradict another of the Republican official’s allegations: that O’Meara Sanders committed federal loan fraud by overstating fundraising commitments when applying for a $6.5 million loan on behalf of Burlington College, the now-defunct school she once ran. > > As Seven Days has previously reported, the latter charge has prompted an extensive federal investigation that former college officials believe is focused on O’Meara Sanders and her 2010 loan application to People’s United Bank. \*\*No evidence has surfaced suggesting that the feds are investigating the senator himself. He and his wife have denied any wrongdoing. Emphasis added. So Snopes implied that Turner was the basis for the allegations against both Bernie and Jane Sanders, both that Bernie pressured the bank, and that Jane misled the bank, and that the basis for all this was hearsay. Further, that the hearsay was the basis for the investigation. In reality, the allegations against Jane, which resulted in an investigation, were not triggered by Turner, and were not the result of hearsay. The allegations against Bernie, which were based on hearsay from Turner, did not result in an investigation. This seems pretty egregious to me, to the point that it’s hard to see it as innocent, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/53 "2017-07-10T16:54:45Z")
The reason snopes seems left-biased is the left is more interested in research and facts than polemics. The right is more more Nugent-tangents, Breitbart-braying and Reilly-folly. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/54 "2017-07-10T17:56:48Z")
Never saw this thread the first time around. I saw [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#758669a2227f) from [Forbes.com](http://Forbes.com) from Dec 2016 that expressed certain concerns about the overall processes of fact checking at Snopes. The Forbes article resulted from the author’s efforts to seek comment on a [salacious article in the Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html). The author of the Forbes article, [Kalev Leetaru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalev_Leetaru), focused on an apparent lack of defined standards that would tend to limit bias. As an example he notes an email exchange with Snopes founder David Mikkelson that though Snopes has apparently employed staff who ran as political candidates but that affiliation is not disclosed. This could present an appearance of conflict at the least. Further Leetaru notes a lack openness when queried about an apparent lack of internal controls at Snopes to verify continuity of ratings over time and to assess staff for bias. Fundamentally Leetaru argues that by its own lack of openness Snopes functions as a sort of trust-me black box of fact checking. Perhaps like sausage making Snopes hopes we enjoy the result but does not want anyone to see how their fact checking work is done. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/55 "2017-07-10T18:12:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > ISTM that the site is slightly biased to the left. Their fact checking is very good. The key question is how eager they are to provide background context, and more importantly, to what extent they decide that the context itself is part of the facts. Meaning, for example, suppose someone makes a factual statement about Clinton/Obama/Bush/Trump. The facts are true, but if you understand the background info it’s a lot less damaging than if you don’t. Does that mean the claim is “false”? You can look at that both ways, but ISTM that they’re quicker to pull up background info and declare things false in this manner when it’s Democrats than when it’s Republicans. I agree with this. I don’t think their bias results in Republican statements being called false, so much as Democrats’ statements being labeled [mostly] true when you add context that was not included in the original statement. > [@Iggy](#): > > Fundamentally Leetaru argues that by its own lack of openness Snopes functions as a sort of trust-me black box of fact checking. Perhaps like sausage making Snopes hopes we enjoy the result but does not want anyone to see how their fact checking work is done. When _Forbes_ starts checking its _own_ sources, I’ll care more. Snopes links to its sources and its answers are documented. It’s not as though it just comes up with a “true” or “false” rating absent context like a Magic 8 Ball or something. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/56 "2017-07-10T18:24:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I agree with this. I don’t think their bias results in Republican statements being called false, so much as Democrats’ statements being labeled [mostly] true when you add context that was not included in the original statement. > > When _Forbes_ starts checking its _own_ sources, I’ll care more. Snopes links to its sources and its answers are documented. It’s not as though it just comes up with a “true” or “false” rating absent context like a Magic 8 Ball or something. You seemed to have disregarded the criticisms from the Forbes article with the same sweeping dismissal that is the subject of this thread when used to dismiss Snopes as a source. Ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/57 "2017-07-10T18:31:20Z")
Snopes tends to dismiss things quickly in an attempt-to-sound-reassuring way, rather than an actual factual-analysis way. Example: [This article](http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp) about “snuff films” - films in which someone is murdered on camera, for real: > [@](#): > > Even if he stays completely out of the camera’s way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door. Uh - no, I don’t think it is that easy. A video in which the murderer doesn’t appear in the video lens, in which there is no DNA evidence, murderer makes no vocal sound so as to not betray his vocal cord signature, killing takes place perhaps in a basement with no clue as to location (i.e., no visual landmarks), and we’re supposed to airily believe that the police will “quickly” be led to the right door? Why, there might never be such a thing as an FBI cold case. It sounds like the Hollywoodized “There is nothing the FBI can’t do” assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654/58 "2017-07-10T19:59:23Z")
The right is training people not to believe anything, so that they’ll believe bullshit. Politifacts? Snopes? Educated people? Can’t be trusted. They have a liberal bias. We see a lot of it even on this board. Cite one of the above and someone will cry “BIAS!” and then quote some obscure 2,000 follower blog as proof of something. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-people-honestly-believe-snopes-is-biased/767654.md?page=2)