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.
Is there anything in particular that leads you to believe this?
Mere window dressing for the behind-the-scenes cabal comprising former members of the Weather Underground, ACORN, and the Screen Actors Guild.
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.
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.
Both are examples of “bias”. Had you used “agenda” rather than “bias” in #2 the distinction would be better.
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.
both Eisenhower and Khrushchev were bald, what other proof is needed.
Even so, we still have a baldness gap!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94340197
Shame they hired someone from the early 90s to do the design.
I’ve even encountered a meme on other boards that the Associated Press has a liberal bias.
Dunno where that came from!
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
They certainly are a different story…and they are also a different topic. Talk about a shotgun approach to argument.
Are you accusing them of something for which you have evidence, or are you…Just Asking Questions?
What evidence would be acceptable to you?
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.
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?”
That’s not to say that all purported evidence is persuasive.
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?