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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.)
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?)
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.
Here is theoriginal quote from a GW Bush aide possibly Karl Rove.
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.
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.
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…
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… 
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://www.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.]
“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.”
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.
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:
-
Do the answers address the question thoroughly? Do they leave out any facts that render their answers incomplete and one-sided?
-
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.
You would probably have to kill God. Good luck with that.
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?
Now I’m curious: can someone link to a particularly egregious example of Snopes’ alleged liberal bias?
The two “main players” are a Canadian and a dude who was been known to vote Republican. Does that set your mind at rest?