Snopes Got Snoped


I love this story.  Not only does it explain why I do not place much credibility in Snopes, the fact that it is done by someone with the exact same credentials drives homw the point.  The only thing that separates the two is that the “MSM” has ‘blessed’ Snopes, thereby giving it the appearance of credibility.  But then, given what is in the story, why wouldn’t the MSM support Snopes?  Snopes is helping them do their primary job of misleading people about the Leftist agenda and doings:

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.

What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

Read the rest…


Watch how this post will be attacked by citing other Left-leaning sites that purport to ‘de-bunk’ myths.  This is the essence of the issue.  If all Snopes does is use the internet for their sources — which they do — then what they determine to be true depends on what they accept as ‘credible’ sources.  If they only accept Left-leaning sources as ‘credible,’ then — by definition — they are guilty of what the post I linked to claims.  Furthermore, no one is infallible, but Snopes is always defended by its supporters as being just that: perfect.  This is a decidedly Leftist characteristic.  Think about it: when was the last time you heard someone on the Left admit they were wrong without trying to offer an excuse or explanation for how or why they were wrong?  The fact is, Snopes has been proven wrong — many times.  But every time the evidence is presented, Snopes Left-leaning supporters simply deny the evidence or point to another, Snopes-like, Left-leaning site to prove Snopes is not wrong.  That is fallacious reasoning/arguing — another Leftist characteristic.  🙂

81 thoughts on “Snopes Got Snoped

  1. A couple years ago I spent about an hour searching Snopes for ANY story in which they did anything but give OWEbozo a butt kissing…………. never found even one.

  2. Maybe you should have ‘fact-checked this article before you started cackling with glee……

    Guess you will have to find some way to discredit factcheck now….

    This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it.

      • Seriously, you cannot find anything more egregious than the example in your post? Why should we listen to you, Joe? After all, you are just one guy, and that is one less person than Snopes!
        Killing the messenger does not change the message,

        • YOU shouldn’t listen to me, Greg. I don’t say what you want to hear, so you go into ‘defense’ mode the minute you do. That shuts down your mind and any opportunity you might have to otherwise consider what I am saying and — maybe, just maybe — learning something.

          So, no, YOU shouldn’t read me. But those who are truly trying to understand this world might want to because I am not as far from truth as you 🙂

          • All rant and no fact, typical of one who has no facts to begin with
            The truth has a liberal bias, Joe. All the exaggerated hyperbole you spew cannot change that fact.

            You think that I ‘wanted’ to hear about San Diego’s mayor? No, but I deal with the facts, which tell this guy should be gone, sooner than later.
            Same with Weiner, same with the IRS abuses, I want the truth, no matter whose side of the fence the guy peed on.

            Factcheck, btw, is run by the Annenberg family, who famously turned TV Guide into a conservative organ, and Walter Annenberg and the famous progressive, Ronald Wilson Reagan were great friends.

            • And FDR admired Mussolini and Hitler — at one time. That doesn’t change the fact that much of the media YOU accept as ‘credible’ draws funding from George Soros.

              But, as has been shown many times, you do not care to hear the fact: only those that suit your narrative. This is why I have given up on providing you with the sources you request: because you have proven you seldom read them and never accept them.

              Or have you forgotten the last time you tried this game with me and ended up with egg on your face in the form of WOODROW WILSON’S WORDS ENDORSING COMMUNISM FOR AMERICA?!

              • You remember things a bit different, because you have too many half-truths to juggle, Joe. Putting it in caps doesn’t make it any truer

                And If you ever read Soros works, you would see that you and he are not far apart at all.

                • Bernie is the only democrat in the race, the others are DINOs, who worship the man who hands them the cash. Trump may not be beholden to the greedheads that control both parties now, but that does not change the fact that he is one of them.
                  Again, Gary Johnson is the best choice, As much as I admire Sanders, he is getting old. I know what comes now, but I am not a party guy. Hillary is just not trustworthy, she abuses the loyalty of her followers, Trump is out of the question, and I’m too busy.

              • He was a Democrat … once. But then he grew up, got a job, started paying taxes and decided to join the adults in the Republican Party. As it once was.

        • Idiot lol

          Seriously. Snopes basically runs that site.
          Fact check is ran by people that always resort to Snopes. Look through their subjects, they are constantly referring to snopes as a go-to-source.

    • Snopes is mathematically biased. No opinion is even needed to come to this conclusion.

      Use your own brain and eyes to check these facts for yourself. Count the number of facts they pursue and debunk against liberal politicians vs how many they pursue and fail to debunk against republicans.

      Some people just despise thinking for themselves though, and prefer to get their reality from sources that have an interest in defending themselves or their allies.

      • Hah! That is because FOX ‘news’ has the worst fact checking, along with shows like Rush and so on the radio. The ratio comes from the number of false statements made by the bias on the right to WANT to cling to goofy stuff like WMD’s and hoax papers by the Koch’s on climate change.

        • Trump alone causes a great deal of the bias….

          True5 (3%)(5)
          Mostly True14 (8%)(14)
          Half True26 (14%)(26)
          Mostly False30 (17%)(30)
          False72 (40%)(72)
          Pants on Fire34 (19%)

          Versus Clinton..

          True52 (23%)(52)
          Mostly True62 (28%)(62)
          Half True48 (22%)(48)
          Mostly False33 (15%)(33)
          False25 (11%)(25)
          Pants on Fire3 (1%)

          • see, again, if there is “mostly” or “partly” in it, then it is OPINION! A FACT either is or is not, period. It must be 100% in either direction. So, when you start saying this is “proof” of something, all it does is reveal your own blindness toward your own biases. So, again, people who cannot agree that water is wet when they are swimming in the middle of the ocean really aren’t the types of people with whom you can have rational conversations. 🙂

          • Idiots who believe a word who comes out of Clintoon’s mouth:

            Conservative – .0001%
            Republicans – .5%
            Independents – 3%
            Democrats – 99.999999999%
            Brain-dead Retards – 99.9999999%

            NOTE: the last two groups are equivalent.

        • See, when I KNOW the WMDs were found, and the WORLD has said they were found, but I find soemone still claiming they were not, I know I have found someone who couldn’t be convinced that water is wet if I pushed him into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. But thanks for playing 🙂

        • If you still believe in “climate change” (Al Gore snickers and sticks his sweaty, greasy palm out and says, “Gimme some moah of yoah money an’ I’ll make that bad ol’ man-made warmin’ go away (snicker, snicker)! Now, ‘scuse me. I gotta go hop into one o’ my fine ol’ jets and burn me a li’l bit o’ that fine ol’ fossil fuel whiles I bop on down to one o’ my dozens of utilities-burnin’ mansions and light ceegars with hunnerd dollar bills … YORE hunnerd dollar bills, chump!”), I have a beachfront house in Kansas I’d like to sell you. You seem gullible … errrr, naive … oops, stupid … dang it, I meant to say SMART enough to know a value when you see it. What time can we meet so I can take your money … for the property, that is?

  3. I tried to say this in a Comment a while back.

    A check of their Ads during the 2007 2010 years shows they were almost COMPLELELY funded by Soros-connected Compnaies and “foundations”……thus a Proxy for Obama and the Left.

    Of Course it didn’t go over well here at all………….

    • Don,

      It never does. The Left never sees anything wrong with being connected to people who share their ideology/agenda because they do not see the problems inherent in that ideology/agenda.

      But then, the Right has the same problem — just not as bad a case of it.

      • The whole point is that Snopes is supposed to have no agenda. It’s not a problem for the liberals to be associated with Snopes at all, it’s a problem for Snopes to be associated with liberals while claiming to be unbiased.

        It’s kind of hilarious really. Like when Fox say they’re unbiased.

            • And pray tell, BlackylacksFactuality, what proof did Boob offer? As usual with leftwing dolts (I can prove it!), absolutely none. But being a fellow lefty, you had no problem with his lack of proof?? A double standard in the Left????? Whaaaa!??!

  4. Lazy….all of you who dont research past one source…are simply lazy, or just dont want to be proved wrong. Start out your query on a site YOU trust see what the opposing sides sites say about the subject, then cross reference that with sites wot cant stand,AlJazeera,Infowars,Russian times, see how the rest of the world feels about your subject, dont discount the fact that those who have differing opinions than you may be right based on opinion you could both be right. Facts can be twisted and opinions are like buttholes, everyone has them. Why would anyone trust any one solitary site???? Because it fits their agenda its all truths mixed with falsehoods to give the impression of being totally true.

    • Interesting. I have cited the HufPo, Politico, Think Progress, Media Matters, Pravda Today and a host of other typically “NOT RIGHT-WING” sources, yet — somehow — it is just assumed that I couldn’t POSSIBLY think “my side” can be wrong???

      What more can I do to make you happy? Agree with you? Sorry, I can’t do that unless I have good cause to do so — which is why I do not just assume Snopes is infalible.

      BTW: you are arguing just that: that Snopes can’t and doesn’t make mistakes. In case you do not know this, that is fallacious reasoning. It means you have actually contradicted yourself. Just sayin’ 🙂

    • Your post is difficult to read because it’s: 1) primarily, stupid; 2) improperly punctuated; 3) rife with run-on sentences; 4) full of misspelled words; 5) contains disjointed logic; 6) contains incorrect information. The FACT is, opinions ARE like buttholes – everyone has one, but they all stink but mine.
      Thanks, glad I could help.

  5. In their “One Ring Scam” article, Snopes attempts to debunk the rumor, stating that a victim might “realistically be out $5 or so in toll charges” because that’s as much as international rates cost. They completely missed reports by USA Today and BBB which verify rumors that callers could be out $20 in this scam. Snopes didn’t understand that callers in those cases are re-routed to expensive chat lines, not being charged international rates as they suggest.

    Snopes will likely update their incorrect story without saying a word, despite the fact that numerous readers already shared their incorrect “debunking” story.

    • smithman,

      Yep, SNOPES is not the ‘can’t make a mistake’ source so many people think it is, and this is all I have ever tried to say. That you STILL need to double check what they say, just like you should double check everything anyone says — especially me (but then, I want people to go find the proof that I am wrong, because I know what they will find 😉 )

  6. The whoi;e point is that none of the bloviating in this thread has turned up any example of Snopes being in error.
    I love how the whole worship of small business is revealed to be bogus, as you think Snopes being a mom-and-pop operation is somehow a bad thing.

    • Annenberg is a Democrat donor since ….forever. Factcheck fact checking Snopes is like Charlie Rangel being in charge of the Taxes and Ethics committee.

    • James,
      Find ONE, just ONE, place on snopes where they have done anything but kiss OWEbozo’s ass. I have never been able to find one instance of snopes finding and printing anything that shows OWEbozo to be the worthless POS that he actually is.

      • Dusty is correct: the fact that Snopes has NEVER found anything against Obama to be true actually condemns them — because a great deal of the accusations made against him have been shown to be true (or “mostly true”)

  7. Pingback: Snopes Welfare Abuse | Sakeydoungnhuk

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.