Snopes Exposed?

Claim: "Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source."

______beforeitsnews/story/83/370/Snopes_Exposed.html



What do you all think? True? False? Mixed? Does it matter?

Trust nothing, believe nothing? Consider the source




[edit on 8/10/2010 by ~Lucidity]

I believe they are fallible just like anyone else, and have never considered them experts.

Are we saying that they're some sort of lackeys for leftist views here?

Whoa whoa whoa you're telling me billionaires and politicians are paying others to support their views?

RIDICULOUS, I DONT BELIEVE IT!

reply to post by Seiko

Yes. Like anyone else.

I imaging from the sound of it, that this person is coming from the right, but who knows.

reply to post by hippomchippo

like we haven't heard this before.

Just something to consider for those who need this kind of information and place stock in it when assessing where they're getting their facts.

Someone always seems to be in someone's pocket anymore. It's getting to be the rule rather than the exception.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I dont trust websites who's top stories include:

"Terrifying giant 5-foot spiders spotted in Congo"
"Britney Spears flashes photogs with no Panties"
"Two horned skull found on Mars"
"First Images Of Kelly Brook's Playboy Photo Shoot Released"
"Build a Nuclear Fallout Shelter in 24 Hours or Less"
"Russian Village Purchased by TorrentReactor File Sharing Website"
"OMG! Free College for Everyone! "


Consider the source indeed

Its just another hyper-conpsiracy web site using non credible sources to discredit a well known skeptic site. In other words its complete BS, and they are most likely making it up.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


And as for the source of funding....Snopes is completely independant, which they say on their site...they never tried to hide anything.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things.

Classic.

Is this blogger in high school?

reply to post by OzWeatherman


You think I do? I put this here for deconstruction.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity Consider the source

[edit on 8/10/2010 by ~Lucidity]

The author of the article him/herself doesnt sound very unbiased politically, with all the "flaming liberal" comments. Nor do I see much outside objective support for the claims in there.

So Snopes may have gotten a few things wrong? Who doesnt? Do they retract or correct themselves? What percentage do they get wrong or right? What does it matter if they had formal training in investigation if they do a good job?

It just seems like a hatchet piece to me. From a clearly biased source.

If and when someone shows that some outrageous percent of their conclusions are bull# and skewed in such a way as to be propaganda, then we have a story.

The fact that Snopes may get some funding from some liberal organization is not really a story. Judging from the sheer volume of crazy email claims by Republicans that circulate into my email folder disguised as "facts" and stated authoritatively as such, I can imagine they might be grateful for the services of Snopes and want to contribute to ensure they keep doing what they do.

I can also understand why Republicans might want to slander Snopes for doing so. Even though I have a higher percentage of friends who are liberal, I dont receive many (if any) emails from them slandering the right. I got some funny pictures of Bush next to a chimp making the same faces he was, but I never got photoshopped photos of Bush dressed like a pimp at a white house formal being passed off as a true story.

I did get one of Obama and Michelle dressed like a pimp and ho that was purported to be a real depiction of them at a white house affair.

Bottom line, Snopes may not be perfect, but they are pretty darn reliable, (unless someone has objective data suggesting otherwise) and I dont care who gives them money, or how pissed off the people whose email campaigns they ruin might get.

reply to post by LadySkadi


I had a good giggle at the Marxist stuff too.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Great assessment. There are a few sites I feel exactly the same way about, who I think maintain a pretty darn good record. Funding isn't always the beginning and ending of a story, though many come out and attack some sites in just this way.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

You think I do? I put this here for deconstruction.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity Consider the source

[edit on 8/10/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Huh?

I know you put this here for deconstruction, I was trying to help

Im confused now

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Sorry, for a minute there I thought you thought I believed it! Sometimes I am a bit too subtle in my words, and I worried about not being clear.

I appreciate your help. Thanks.

Apparently this entire story is based on a chain email (imagine that). Anyway, FactCheck.org has an article about it all at www.factcheck.org...

Q: Is Snopes.com run by "very Democratic" proprietors? Did they lie to discredit a State Farm insurance agent who attacked Obama?

A: A chain e-mail that "exposed" Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.

and

And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:
State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.

And here I thought all the "make it up for fun" news sites had been bought out by Onion and Pravda! There's some funny stuff there, but I hope people don't think it's an actual news source. It's a spoof site.

Before It's News is not a trustworthy site anyways...

It is full of useless stories or commercial ads disguised as stories.

Once in a while there's a gem on beforeitsnews, but they're rare. The thing about this guy was he was dead serious, it seems. And as someone says it sounds like an email or something.

I've always found Snopes to be pretty thorough and mostly accurate and hate to see them slammed.

Thought I'd put this up as a preemptive sort of rebuttal/strike in case this were to go viral. If that makes sense. Plus, yeah, it made me laugh too.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Snopes can be reliable for SOME things. Most of the standard urban legends, computer viruses, missing people, etc? Sure, they can be reliable there. On anything political, or anything related to Disney? Don't trust them. They are extremely liberal on politics, and even use misleading ratings to deceive people. For example, calling something "false" over some arguable point, when in fact most of the information is true, and verified in many other locations. Seen cases where I saw VIDEO showing something to be true, that they claimed was false. They lie and cover up for their liberal politician cronies.

On Disney? How long do you have to listen? Personally checked into some the matters they call "false", and they flat out LIE.

1. The Little Mermaid VHS cover, and the phallus on the front - I SAW one of these; friend in Germany owned it. Said Disney offered to buy it, but she wasn't selling. Can tell you this; there is NO WAY that was not meant to be exactly what it looks like. Snopes, however, calls this story "false", because the artist responsible was a contracted worker, not a regular Disney employee. Totally ignoring the fact that Disney sent the videos out that way. Totally ignoring that this was deliberate.

2. The Little Mermaid - "over-excited" priest in the wedding scene. Own a copy of this on VHS. Checked it myself to see if the rumors were true. They are true. Snopes claims we are seeing the "knee" of the priest. If that were so, he would be seriously deformed. Don't know anyone that keeps their knees in their groin. Went frame-by-frame, and the priest was VERY happy to see Ursula in that wedding dress. Snopes flat-out lies on this issue. Fairly sure Disney edited that out in the DVD releases. Will re-check, though.

3. The Lion King - "sex" written in the dust, pollen, whatever it was - That is there, plain as day.

4. Aladdin - yes, there is a whispered message for kids to take off their clothing. No, it isn't ambiguous at all. I don't even have great hearing, and heard it just fine.

Just some examples. Plenty of reason to take anything they say with a grain of salt, and investigate for yourself.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
...

So Snopes may have gotten a few things wrong? Who doesnt? Do they retract or correct themselves?...

No, they don't. I have emailed them with photo proof of some things they called false, and even their OWN posted stills from some cartoons show that they are lying. Check that priest's "knee" for yourself. Never saw a guy with a knee in his underwear before!

By the way, my opinions on Snopes are not new, and I really don't CARE where they get their funding. I do know when I can check something for myself, as with the Disney videos, and show to be true what they call false, they are less than honest.