I’ve yet to find a blatant falsehood or obvious error posted on Snopes. My only quibble with the operation is this: they often try too hard to make definitive pronouncements on subjects that are really a matter of interpretation and opinion.
Example? Well, you’ve probably heard trivia buffs claim that John Hanson, and not George Washington, was the “real” first President of the U.S., because he was President under the Articles of Confederation.
This, in my opinion, is not quite accurate, but it’s certainly not a falsehood or a myth. John Hanson WAS a real person, and he DID hold the title of President during the period when the U.S. was run under the Articles of Confederation.
Now, was his job the same as that of George Washington? No. Was Hanson held in the same high regard as Washington? No. Did he wield the same kind of executive power that Presidents since Washington have? No. So, I don’t quite buy the idea that Hanson was the “real” first President… but I DO believe that the United States of America was a real, legitimate and independent nation from the moment of the Declaration of Independence, and don’t think the U.S. was just a temporary alliance of colonies until the Constitution was ratified.
In other words, there’s DEFINITELY room for interpretation and argument on this issue. But Snopes doesn’t agree with me! THey give the story of John Hanson a red light, and scoff at the idea that the U.S. was a country before the ratification of the Constitution and at the idea that Hanson held a position of any importance.
And THAT kind of thing, in my view, is both uncalled for and unrelated to the basic mission of Snopes- which is, as I see it, to provide facts, and let us make of those facts what we will.
Snopes is very good (indeed, invaluable) at determining whether the Baby Ruth candy bar was named after a ballplayer or a PResidential daughter. But they’re on shakier ground when they try (as they too often do) to make categorical statements in areas that aren’t so black and white.
