Snopes IS Not a Valid Source (in my opinion - I would like your opinion too)

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

I take it that ATSes official stance is that Snopes has the final say in what is true and not true on the internet. And will be used to direct board decisions. At least that's the way it seems

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

I take it that ATSes official stance is that Snopes has the final say in what is true and not true on the internet. And will be used to direct board decisions. At least that's the way it seems

Snopes:

The Veracity of the OP in thread # 1087534 ?

FALSE

ATS:

Thread closed

Me:

Just kidding mods

a reply to: real_one

I have found that Snopes are in 100% agreement with what they write.



Seriously, a skeptical and investigative attitude should be used everywhere. Snopes is, after all, part of the MSM.

Anyone who states that something is absolute truth is more likely committed to an opinion.

I've always viewed Snopes as a site meant for teenagers looking up the veracity of urban legends.

If people are using it for more than that, well...that's their character flaw.

a reply to: chr0naut

Seriously, a skeptical and investigative attitude should be used everywhere. Snopes is, after all, part of the MSM.

What are their press credentials?

Skeptical is good, deception and lies are not

Anyone who states that something is absolute truth is more likely committed to an opinion.

I agree, sadly we all fall under this category from time to time whether we realize it or not.

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: chr0naut

Seriously, a skeptical and investigative attitude should be used everywhere. Snopes is, after all, part of the MSM.

What are their press credentials?

Skeptical is good, deception and lies are not

Anyone who states that something is absolute truth is more likely committed to an opinion.

I agree, sadly we all fall under this category from time to time whether we realize it or not.

In regard to my suggestion that Snopes was MSM, from the Snopes.com website itself:

The Mikkelsons have made multiple appearances as guests on national news programs such as 20/20, ABC World News, CNN Sunday Morning, and NPR's All Things Considered, and they and their work have been profiled in numerous major news publications, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and an April 2009 Reader's Digest feature ("The Rumor Detectives") published as part of that magazine's "Your America: Inspiring People and Stories" series. Read more at www.snopes.com...

They may not be "press" by definition but they are very much mainstream (usually receiving over 300,000 hits per day) and media.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: chr0naut

Seriously, a skeptical and investigative attitude should be used everywhere. Snopes is, after all, part of the MSM.

What are their press credentials?

Skeptical is good, deception and lies are not

Anyone who states that something is absolute truth is more likely committed to an opinion.

I agree, sadly we all fall under this category from time to time whether we realize it or not.

In regard to my suggestion that Snopes was MSM, from the Snopes.com website itself:

The Mikkelsons have made multiple appearances as guests on national news programs such as 20/20, ABC World News, CNN Sunday Morning, and NPR's All Things Considered, and they and their work have been profiled in numerous major news publications, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and an April 2009 Reader's Digest feature ("The Rumor Detectives") published as part of that magazine's "Your America: Inspiring People and Stories" series. Read more at www.snopes.com...

They may not be "press" by definition but they are very much mainstream (usually receiving over 300,000 hits per day) and media.

300,00? I've had more hits than that in an hour on one of my click-bait blogs.

So as the material you posted indicates, they are not mainstream media.

Alex Jones has appeared on CNN, do you consider him mainstream?

I've seen David Icke on a few of the MSM networks too, now he's MSM too according to your logic.

Heck I've seen YouTube bloggers on Good Morning America...

Are they mainstream too?

ETA:

I had a brief spot on the evening news once...MSM here I come!

originally posted by: real_one

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: chr0naut

Seriously, a skeptical and investigative attitude should be used everywhere. Snopes is, after all, part of the MSM.

What are their press credentials?

Skeptical is good, deception and lies are not

Anyone who states that something is absolute truth is more likely committed to an opinion.

I agree, sadly we all fall under this category from time to time whether we realize it or not.

In regard to my suggestion that Snopes was MSM, from the Snopes.com website itself:

The Mikkelsons have made multiple appearances as guests on national news programs such as 20/20, ABC World News, CNN Sunday Morning, and NPR's All Things Considered, and they and their work have been profiled in numerous major news publications, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and an April 2009 Reader's Digest feature ("The Rumor Detectives") published as part of that magazine's "Your America: Inspiring People and Stories" series. Read more at www.snopes.com...

They may not be "press" by definition but they are very much mainstream (usually receiving over 300,000 hits per day) and media.

So as the material you posted indicates, they are not mainstream media.

Alex Jones has appeared on CNN, do you consider him mainstream?

I've seen David Icke on a few of the MSM networks too, now he's MSM too according to your logic.

Heck I've seen YouTube bloggers on Good Morning America...

Are they mainstream too?

We don't know!

That is where we allow our critical thinking skills to come into play? I watch FOX news just because I am very familiar with the Tri Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Doesn't mean I believe everything FOX news says, but when it comes to the war machine, it makes it easier for me to separate the wheat from the chaff?

I don't believe in anything I hear from any news organization at this point because they are paid for by the same 1% I hear everyone bitching about on a daily basis on ATS! But I guess if it is news geared towards a persons Cognitive Dissonance it must be true?

With you 1000% real_one .
Snopes is worthless on questions
that really matter. Wikipedia isn't
honest about their coverage of issues either.
Alphabet Agencies control both.

a reply to: seeker1963

My reply to the poster was intended to explain that just because snopes pushes the MSM narrative, it does not make them a MSM outlet as I believe they were trying to portraye, it makes them a MSM asset.

Other poster was obviously playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate which is fine but they contradicted themselves within their own post so I took it with a grain of salt.

I have no doubt they are ran by some alphabet agency but I just can't prove it.

Snopes isn't the end all be all by any means but they do support what they say.

What I usually see is that people that are against it will turn around and use blogs as their proof. And then talk about pushing narratives and bias....

a reply to: Sremmos80

Snopes isn't the end all be all by any means but they do support what they say.

You see, that's the problem, they don't always support what they say.

In fact they have been caught moving goal posts a few times.

What I usually see is that people that are against it will turn around and use blogs as their proof.

Well since snopes is a blog type website as well, what makes snopes superior to other blogs? The other blogs criticizing snopes have supporting evidence much of the time too.

To be honest I don't need a blog to expose snopes for what they are, all I have to do is visit their site and look at a few of their "conclusions" and it is clear to me that they are grasping at straws on all the meaty subjects.

And then talk about pushing narratives and bias....

I'm just expressing my opinions, and admitted my bias about snopes, I can't stand them.

You've shown bias in regards to your opinion of them supporting their claims.

I don't consider un-sourced circumstantial evidence which ignores all other variables as proof, I need more than that. The research should be done by oneself, not spoonfed to you by state sponsored shills.

I think Snopes is a valid source. They attempt to do research and post their findings. As with any source, they are going to be wrong on occasion. You can always counter Snopes with another source that shows something different.

a reply to: real_one

Well you are making it seem like if they say it I agree with it, slow your roll.

I simply just said that I feel like what they say they support, doesn't mean it is always right.

What subjects do you have issue with on snopes?

Also, what makes a valid source in your eyes?

a reply to: real_one
Welcome to the MSM family...

Now remember. Speak only from your provided statements. These are prepared special for the people. Yes we know they are full of BS and stem from lies , half-truths , and propaganda. But that is what the game is all about.

Snopes is funded by George Soros. Enough said!

a reply to: real_one

I agree, 100%! I first heard of them (and this isn't really a surprise) from a HS friend who is quite liberal. We don't talk much, but she directed me to the site regarding some missing person email that was doing the rounds. It seemed handy enough for that. Some of the odd stories were pretty amusing, as well. However, when it came to anything political, a clear bias was obvious, and some outright lies were posted.

When it came to Disney, they lost all credibility! I know for a fact that some of what they post in that regard is utter BS. For example, I saw the VHS case for The Little Mermaid, and the "artwork" that they call "false" is very real! NO WAY that was not intentional. Their "false" claim was based on the employee being contracted, or some such reasoning. In the same movie, there is another claim, having to do with the priest at the shipboard wedding. Snopes claims it's his "knee" we see. That was no knee. We owned the VHS, and went frame-by-frame to check out the claim, and yeah, the priest really liked Ursula's dress...... Snopes lied.

Same for the foggy letters in The Lion King - they actually do spell out "sex".

In an old Bugs Bunny video, you can see what is "Ken-style" male shaping under a towel, and they even show this in pics, and claim it isn't there.

Contact them, ,and point out the falsehoods, and you get spin and lies and a basic, "we don't care" attitude. From what I was able to find out, it's some husband-and-wife thing, with no credentials, pretending to be the end-all-be-all of truth. They are a joke, and should be treated as less credible than Wiki. They knowingly post lies, whereas Wiki is simply too lax about checking user editing.

a reply to: real_one

I agree with the OP 100%. Snopes is the lazy mans guide to official dogma. Its full of inaccuracies and agenda driven poetrayals of some topics.

a reply to: real_one

Nothing is perfect, but as far as credible sources go, it's FAR more credible than some of the trash that gets posted on ATS on the regular. Sites like WND that latch onto whatever hearsay they can and try to pass it off as truth.

originally posted by: WP4YT
Snopes is funded by George Soros. Enough said!

Fox News is funded by Rupert Murdoch. So what?