And if you want proof, here is them going out of their way to add context to a bad soundbite from Trump: Donald Trump Didn't Say Vets with PTSD Are 'Weak' | Snopes.com
And, guess what? Reading that, I still disagree with them. He still said some people were not as strong, as if PTSD has anything to do with how strong you are. It’s still calling them weak. It’s just that, in context, he still promoted helping them.
That faint swishy sound is what a ‘whoosh’ sounds like when it goes over at extreme altitude 
No, people would find reputable citations and post them in response.
I’ve started to see a tendency among the woo-prone to dismiss Snopes as they do Wikipedia, though mostly because they’re insufficiently high-toned (ignoring the accompanying references, of course).
The high-toned sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles) are also dismissed as either the product of corporate shills or with the all-purpose “this research article proves that most research is wrong”.*
*a sense of irony is poorly developed in the woo crowd.
Who do you think was doing the whooshing, Drunky Smurf, you or me? 
I don’t think the wife is involved with the site any more.
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”.
Here’s the founder’s bio:
It doesn’t bother me related to the credibility of the site.
Even if an organization was non-biased yesterday, that doesn’t mean that they will stay non-biased forever.
We must always be vigilant.
Snopes IS biased–against bullshit and lies.
Yes that was fine when Snopes only checked the credibility of other published stories and showed their work. Now they also publish their own news stories by multiple authors who get their own byline. They are not skeptically checking news stories they are creating original content. A reporter presenting the news should have actual credentials.
Any human-run entity will necessarily have bias. The only question is in which direction and to what degree.
Still waiting for links to specific examples of Snopes bias…
This is IMHO. So I’m giving my opinion. On other pages and sites I’ve frequented I’ve seen the “Snopes is a shill for the DNC” theme and I always thought it was bullshit. Everything I had ever read on there was very neutral and well cited when they reached a conclusion. When they didn’t have enough evidence then they didn’t claim to. I have noticed a difference lately. At some point in the past they expanded. They added a news tab where they produced original content without the true/false labels. They added several other writers. They started posting new articles to social media more often. I’m assuming this was an economic move. Before when I could never find anything that I would consider a bias one way or another I started finding stories where their conclusion sounded more like opinion than verifiable fact. I wasn’t expecting to have to write a research paper about it so I didn’t note each instance. Since this is IMHO I posted how my opinion of the site has shifted. I read the articles quite often. I don’t look at it the same way anymore and it saddens me a bit. There fact check articles are still spot on. Most of the rest of it is too but I read a little more carefully now.
Yes, I agree. More or less, altho I can detect a very slight Mikkelson bias, they try very hard to be neutral.
And so far, other than the Texas splitting into five states thing, they are usually right.
Yes, but Snopes tries really hard to show no bias. More or less, I think they succeed.
Yeah, but it’s still a claim, and one that is contrary to every other poster in the thread so far. We just want evidence. Obviously, you didn’t keep track before, but, maybe, when you see bias again, you can bring it up, and we can evaluate it.
You are, IIRC, more conservative than the board in general. You are simultaneously more likely to notice a slightly leftward bias more than the rest of us, and more likely to see bias towards the left in what we would consider unbiased reporting.
I for one don’t think the jokey bios matter, except when detractors try to use it against them. I personally would prefer more subtle jokes, but I can see the argument that obvious ones are better, so no one takes them seriously.
They’ve still got to remain true to the way the site works–which has always had a bit of fun with credulous people.
Reading anything carefully is often a good idea. But you have no specific examples of bias to present…
It’s impossible to give specific debatable examples when the issue is the possibility of a pattern of subtle subjective bias.
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.
Again, this is a highly subjective matter and one that does not lend itself to examples and proof. Obviously some people’s mileage varies, and that’s fine too. But their opinion is, like mine, merely their own subjective judgment and nothing more.
What I do find amusing is the notion that it’s some sort of shocking thing to believe that people publishing a folklore website might have some sort of political bias. It’s like because these people are into folklore they must be hermits or from another planet and have no opinion on any major issues of the day. This is silly.
That’s the gist of it 99% of the time. Person posts something dumb, other person links Snopes, first person is embarrassed to be wrong and so says “That doesn’t count! Snopes is stupid!”