Quantcast

Is SNOPES a true fact source?

Related Topics: Party, Election, Wikipedia, Barack Obama, Friends, Mom, Lawyers, Liberal, State, Office, Place, Obama, Liberals, Wife, Husband, blog, Video, Internet

Subject: EYE OPENER - SNOPES


For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on a ny comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes..com.


Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity with many believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?


The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.


A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a=2 0big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's clai m to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!



Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose driven agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.
There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Remember, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com


I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False...... ;Then they gave their Liberal slant....!!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder. www.truthorfiction.com is a far a better source for verification, in my opinion.


This couple are is in the tank for Obama. There are many things t hey have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not... trust Snopes.com ever for anything that is remotely political! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. So goes modern journalism. There are cropping up numerous sites and blogs that openly challenging Snopes's findings, opinions, and outright claims.< br>

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about Snopes a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway So you might consider thinking twice before relying on for Snopes.com for fact checking and so your friends the courtesy of tipping them off to Snopes political slant.
Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual.
We need to make sure everyone is aware that... Snopes is a hoax in itself.

Betty Jones
baadjones@cebridge.net

Read more: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/snopes-soros...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • LG 2010/12/07 18:18:41
    LG
    +11
    How can Wikipedia "get to the bottom of it" when any article on that site can be edited or added to by anyone? The articles are Wikipedia are not moderated, and anyone can say anything they like. Unless the article on Snopes at Wikipedia includes direct, true citations, I doubt anyone would consider it a trustworthy source.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • bettyboop 2014/08/25 13:49:10
    bettyboop
    +1
    I never relied on SNOPES. In fact when I am curious about an issue I spent hours and days researching it.
  • keeper bettyboop 2014/08/25 16:11:19
    keeper
    +1
    Very wise of you~~
  • Prophet 2014/08/25 11:15:21
  • keeper Prophet 2014/08/25 16:11:39
    keeper
    Right!
  • Chris La 2014/08/17 04:53:11
    Chris La
    Snopes, and wikipedia are edited by people who you do not know and that I believe that snopes and wikipedia barely know themselves! I don't think of either of them as 'definitive'
  • keeper Chris La 2014/08/17 17:19:35
    keeper
    snopes is a liberal husband and wife combo...
  • Chris La keeper 2014/08/19 13:44:01
    Chris La
    +1
    Thank you, I didn't know the details on that site
  • keeper Chris La 2014/08/19 15:29:43
    keeper
    YW
  • Tom Dundee 2014/08/06 00:49:29
    Tom Dundee
    +2
    Not good. Snopes, FactCheck, and another site are leftist wing sites to propagandate the masses.
  • keeper Tom Dundee 2014/08/06 16:47:03
    keeper
    You are correct...
  • Tom Dundee keeper 2014/08/24 19:20:51
    Tom Dundee
    +1
    Thanks
  • USAF Vet 2014/08/04 03:22:17
    USAF Vet
    +1
    I find both informative, stimulating and a starting point upon initiating and on line investigation of something
  • Shel SHP 2014/08/04 00:56:20
    Shel SHP
    +2
    Neither snopes or wici are reliable.
  • keeper Shel SHP 2014/08/04 01:11:42
  • Centrist_Bill 2014/08/03 15:15:05
    Centrist_Bill
    +1
    OMG talk about picking and choosing. Here is another item FROM YOUR LINK:

    Accuracy

    Snopes has received praise from folklorist Dr. Jan Harold Brunvand, author of a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, who considers the site so comprehensive as to obviate the necessity for launching one of his own.[11]

    David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias,[23] but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[23][24]

    http://web.archive.org/web/20...

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009...

    http://www.networkworld.com/a...

    And you think ITS biased? Look in the mirror.
    OMG talk about picking and choosing. Here is another item FROM YOUR LINK:

    Accuracy

    Snopes has received praise from folklorist Dr. Jan Harold Brunvand, author of a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, who considers the site so comprehensive as to obviate the necessity for launching one of his own.[11]

    David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias,[23] but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[23][24]

    http://web.archive.org/web/20...

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009...

    http://www.networkworld.com/a...

    And you think ITS biased? Look in the mirror.
    (more)
  • Jimm 2014/08/03 06:50:31 (edited)
    Jimm
    As with ANYTHING on the internet, I take Snopes "facts" with a grain of salt! They're correct 100% of the time...unless they're not!
  • BIGNEVERMO 2014/08/02 19:30:30 (edited)
    BIGNEVERMO
    +1
    Try citing examples of snopes proven wrong, instead of someones blog...

    even other fact finding sites back up snopes...

    "Analysis: It apparently never occurred to this anonymous emailer to cite even one actual instance of Snopes.com promulgating "half-truths" or "lies" under the guise of providing reliable information. So much for credibility (the emailer's, I mean).



    (UPDATE: See debunked examples of alleged Snopes.com bias in the "Bud Gregg incident" discussed later in this article, and in Snopes' handling of rumors claiming that Elena Kagan represented Obama in cases challenging his Constitutional legitimacy before she was appointed to the Supreme Court.)



    It's doubly ironic that an attack like this should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year (2008) marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to Snopes.com to debunk.



    Let's examine the accusations.



    CLAIM: Snopes.com is owned by 'a flaming liberal' with a partisan bias.

    First off, it's clear that whoever wrote this piece made it up as they went along. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing Snopes.com knows that the website is owned by two people, not one, husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of...

























































    Try citing examples of snopes proven wrong, instead of someones blog...

    even other fact finding sites back up snopes...

    "Analysis: It apparently never occurred to this anonymous emailer to cite even one actual instance of Snopes.com promulgating "half-truths" or "lies" under the guise of providing reliable information. So much for credibility (the emailer's, I mean).



    (UPDATE: See debunked examples of alleged Snopes.com bias in the "Bud Gregg incident" discussed later in this article, and in Snopes' handling of rumors claiming that Elena Kagan represented Obama in cases challenging his Constitutional legitimacy before she was appointed to the Supreme Court.)



    It's doubly ironic that an attack like this should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year (2008) marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to Snopes.com to debunk.



    Let's examine the accusations.



    CLAIM: Snopes.com is owned by 'a flaming liberal' with a partisan bias.

    First off, it's clear that whoever wrote this piece made it up as they went along. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing Snopes.com knows that the website is owned by two people, not one, husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of southern California. This is stated on the website and has been common knowledge since the website's inception.



    Second, the charge of partisanship is laid without evidence. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.



    Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement provided to FactCheck.org, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to FactCheck.org show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate" (source: FactCheck.org).



    Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.



    A NOTE ON GEORGE SOROS: A later variant of this rumor alleges, without evidence, that Snopes.com is owned and/or financed by liberal philanthropist and hedge fund tycoon George Soros. This is false. Snopes.com is entirely self-supporting through advertising sales.



    Each time I've been confronted with this claim I've asked for evidence of any kind demonstrating a financial connection between Snopes and Soros. No one has ever provided it, much less a coherent argument as to why we should even suppose such a connection exists.



    CLAIM: Snopes.com is 'in the tank for Obama' and 'tells lies' about Republicans.

    You'd think it would be easy for someone so blithely asserting that the owners of Snopes.com are "flaming liberals" to offer evidence that they're "in the tank" for Obama and "covering up" for him. None is provided.



    As of this writing dozens of viral texts about Obama and his running mate have been analyzed on Snopes.com, each meticulously researched with copious references cited. I've perused them all, not to mention the dozens of rumors they've covered about Obama's Republican counterparts, and found no discernible pattern of bias or deception, nor any evidence of advocacy for or against any particular party or political persuasion. To the contrary, I see a consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses of texts which more often than not are themselves dripping with bias and acrimony.



    That's my assessment as a longtime competitor of Snopes.com who has been called upon to investigate many of these same rumors and can boast a better-than-average familiarity with the subject matter. I invite you to make your own.



    CLAIM: TruthorFiction.com is less biased more reliable than Snopes.

    Ironically, TruthorFiction.com has refuted these attacks against Snopes.com and, in point of fact, lauds the site as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.



    A further irony is that when you compare the contents of the two sites their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way. Shouldn't we therefore conclude that TruthorFiction.com is just as biased as Snopes?


    "Is Snopes.com infallible? Of course not
    No one is immune to error, and that includes the folks who run Snopes.com, TruthorFiction.com, and even, God knows, yours truly.

    Reader, if you take nothing else away from this commentary, at least pay heed to this one important point: no information source is infallible. Whether it be an urban legends website, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, mistakes can be made, nuances missed, or unconscious biases unleashed at any point in the fact-checking process.

    Rule of thumb: Wherever possible, avoid depending on any single source of information, no matter how esteemed its reputation or how reliable it has proven in the past.

    To quote Snopes.com's own Barbara Mikkelson, "It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned email that came along."

    In the thorny search for truth, there's no substitute for doing one's own research and applying one's own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed. That's an unbiased fact.

    http://urbanlegends.about.com...
    (more)
  • keeper BIGNEVERMO 2014/08/02 19:38:20
    keeper
    +2
    Mikkelsons are flaming far left liberal progressives by their own admission. They donated heavily to Obama and the DNC.
  • BIGNEVERMO keeper 2014/08/02 23:50:40
    BIGNEVERMO
    +1
    Do you have any sources for your assertion?
    "Snopes.com is owned and run by David and Barbara Mikkelson of California, who have not hidden their identities as one of the viral email claims. Check out the list that shows this at www.snopes.com/info/articles....
    As far as being liberal, other fact-checkers, such as Truthorfiction.com; David Emery, who researches urban legends for the information website About.com; and FactCheck.org have researched Snopes.com and none has found any instance where the Mikkelsons have stated a political preference or affiliation.
    Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, so she can’t contribute to a political campaign or vote in U.S. elections. David Mikkelson provided his voter registration papers to FactCheck.org that show he registered as a Republican in 2000, and had no party affiliation in 2008.


    Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/...
  • BIGNEVERMO keeper 2014/08/02 23:56:54
    BIGNEVERMO
    +1
    Snopes.com is owned by David and Barbara Mikkelson of Agoura Hills, California. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.

    Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to FactCheck.org, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to FactCheck.org show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 26 Next » Last »

About Me

keeper

keeper

Port Isabel, TX, US

2008/05/14 19:08:52

"..the Howling of Imbedded Hues"

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals