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

Probably the biggest (and arguably the only) benefit from visiting ATS for such a long time is the valuable lesson that finding the truth (or as close to it as possible) is a process and most controversial subjects take a lot of time to personally, and honestly, investigate. Take 9/11 for example, regardless of where you stand if you have visited any of the 9/11 threads here you know from experience that there is a lot of intelligent and informed people on both sides of that debate. IMO, that is what I feel is an honest assessment of that micro-community. This should teach any observer (because most participants are too preoccupied with their side of the debate to notice), that the debate or discussion of any serious or controversial topic takes many rounds to even come close to the real truth of the matter. This is why I think Snopes should be taken with a grain of salt...outside the event where a single source has been thoroughly and easily debunked, a one-round discussion can't be as enlightening and definitive as some have trusted Snopes to be.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Fox News is funded by Rupert Murdoch. So what?

Exactly my point! Fox news has been caught in lies multiple times, and clearly has an agenda! Same with snopes.

So what is the source that has the validity to discredit Snopes?

Not saying that it is the end all be all, but y'all are acting like we shouldn't use it at all and then tell me to just 'google it'.

That isn't how it works, you show why it needs to be discredited.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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?

Slow my role?

Sorry Turbo, I don't take orders from online arm chair warriors.

I simply responded to your claim that they back up their stuff.

My issue with snopes is that they've been caught using irrelevant information to arrive to conclusions that certain topics are false.

I'm on mobile so I can't link but I already explained a quick Web search would bring up a long list of their errors and deceptive claims, examples vary all the way from Monsanto to Obama.

If you're truly eager for an answer to your question you would have searched and found some by now. I'll post specific examples when I'm on my pc or laptop.

What makes a valid source in my eyes is real investigative journalism from an unbiased approach with the true intention of finding out the truth no matter what it may be

Sadly all media is controlled and anyone who uncovers any of the inconvenient truths are either silenced or discredited which is why I can't name one valid source that I consider credible.

My method is taking all sources and looking at them all as I know they're pushing an agenda.

I don't care if you're a blogger or an msm news editor, you're most likely either pushing your own biased agenda or putting out stuff from higher up, just following orders for a paycheck the whole lot of them.

Make up your own mind don't put your trust in any source. I've even learned useful information from sources which I believe to be outright disgusting.

I'm sure you're already aware of most of this I'm just trying to answer your questions.

a reply to: real_one

I don't take orders from online arm chair warriors.

Me either, which is why I am asking you to show the valid sources that show that we need to completely disregard snopes.

I am pretty sure you and others don't like what they say about things. I would be in that same boat on some issues. Like 9/11, they discount everything about that.
But doesn't mean they don't get other things right.

Snopes doesn't just throw words out there, when they take on a claim they present it with what they used to get to their answer.
They are not the end all be all by any means, but it is also not a place that you can just say "well since snopes said it then it must be wrong"
Talking about showing bias and pushing an agenda.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

Snopes is useful and has it's place - pretty much for this^.

After that - well let's just say that I know how to 'use teh gooo gle my very own self'. The first time someone brought snopes to my attention I did a search and in 45ish min or so I knew the names of the couple that runs it, the credentials they both didn't have, and had verified 3 instances of snopes deliberately lying. Consequently the first time I saw a mod shut down a serious conversation because of a snopes conclusion (that was literally based on it-can't-be-so-therefore-it-isn't) I was in shock and left with the feeling that the mod was trying to hide something.

This is a sight made for discussing conspiracies - there is just NO justification for shutting down any thread based on snopes IMO.

a reply to: real_one

When any kind of information source particularly news source
that people think is above question-- that's the one to question
the most.

Rebel 5

a reply to: LadyAmarella

Yes Snopes should not define threads. It's user generated submissions for the most part.

a reply to: real_one

I have seen a couple of false statements and "twisting" of words on Snopes.

originally posted by: real_one
If you think they are a credible source, do a simple search with the key words "SNOPES CAUGHT LYING" and you will find multiple examples.

Snopes Caught Lying
I'm glad somebody posted a thread on this, apparently snopes is being used as some kind of officiating criteria here on ATS.