Breaking:Take note Conservatives. Snopes run by fraudster. Staff include porn stars and escorts

[westwall]

Aaaaaand another


"They're not especially rigorous about publishing errata. For example, Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons (Small Plane Crash into Tree). They claim the photograph is genuine... and it is, as far as it goes. But I pointed out to them in an email, giving the second photograph in the article as evidence, that the photograph in question had been manipulated. Specifically, the signs could not have been read from the angle from which the photo was taken. So yes, it did happen. Yes, there's a sign that is funny juxtaposed with the airplane in a tree. But no, the photo is not 'real', since the sign was manipulated.

First, they didn't notice the manipulation themselves. (And they seem to make much of pointing out manipulation in other photos.) Second, they did not amend the article after the manipulation was pointed out to them. (I'm sure I'm not the only one to tell them.) So I'd say they're pretty good at finding out things. But they cannot be relied upon as being the 'last word'.It's not clear to me that either photo was manipulated. The sign seems to be in the same place in both photos. Compare by extending the line formed by the fence row."






"I did find this though, from the airport's website:YES. The famous photo has been altered . The top photo was "photo shopped", as the bottom photo shows, the sign actually faces the opposite direction.Ok, that's pretty definitive. I cede the point: it's faked. And in fact, I think in that older thread you won the point as well, and apologies if we've just replayed a conversation from the wayback machine."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

Vice Vixen Domme is flawless!

 

[Faun]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

 

[Faun]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

Vics Vixen Domme is flawless!

Do everyone here a favor and keep your wanking material to yourself, thanks.

 

[tinydancer]

W

mm

So....let me see if I understand conservative logic here

• 
  
  
  • Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator

• 
  
  
  • She has worked as an escort and porn actress

​

David Mikkelson and snopes is no longer credible because he divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Meanwhile, Conservatives celebrate the election of Donald Trump who divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Snowflakes who can't handle it when their pet stories melt under the light of facts?

Snopes has always had a leftist tilt. If you want the real deal do your own research

That's the standard rightard cry because they can't find Snopes making mistakes. It's the old, shoot the messenger when you can't shoot the message, nonsense.

A rightard cry? Shoot the messenger?



Who the hell is running around trying to claim every article that is not left of center is "fake news". Too freaking funny.

And by the way for all the times the left has "shot the messenger" like trying to paint Steve Bannon as a racist and anti semetic, I'm going to have as much fun as I can going after hooker and porn star "fact checkers" with a liberal bias.

 

[Faun]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

That one starts with someone bitching about the owners and not the contents. A reply is to Chicken Votes for Colonel Sanders, but doesn't specify what's wrong.

The next reply is to Small Plane Crash into Tree, which admits the article is correct when rated as true.

A bunch after that is just more generic whining about snopes and the Mikkelsons.

That's as far as I got.

 

[tinydancer]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

 

[Faun]

W

mm

So....let me see if I understand conservative logic here

• 
  
  
  • Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator

• 
  
  
  • She has worked as an escort and porn actress

​

David Mikkelson and snopes is no longer credible because he divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Meanwhile, Conservatives celebrate the election of Donald Trump who divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Snowflakes who can't handle it when their pet stories melt under the light of facts?

Snopes has always had a leftist tilt. If you want the real deal do your own research

That's the standard rightard cry because they can't find Snopes making mistakes. It's the old, shoot the messenger when you can't shoot the message, nonsense.

A rightard cry? Shoot the messenger?



Who the hell is running around trying to claim every article that is not left of center is "fake news". Too freaking funny.

And by the way for all the times the left has "shot the messenger" like trying to paint Steve Bannon as a racist and anti semetic, I'm going to have as much fun as I can going after hooker and porn star "fact checkers" with a liberal bias.

I have not seen anyone claim "EVERY" article not left of center is "fake news." But there was, and is, plenty of fake news out there. Especially during the election.

 

[Faun]

mm

So....let me see if I understand conservative logic here

• 
  
  
  • Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator

• 
  
  
  • She has worked as an escort and porn actress

​

David Mikkelson and snopes is no longer credible because he divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Meanwhile, Conservatives celebrate the election of Donald Trump who divorced his wife and married an escort and porn actress

Snowflakes who can't handle it when their pet stories melt under the light of facts?

Snopes has always had a leftist tilt. If you want the real deal do your own research

That's the standard rightard cry because they can't find Snopes making mistakes. It's the old, shoot the messenger when you can't shoot the message, nonsense.

It's probably why you left loons are so ill informed...you follow Snopes and then wonder why you're viewed as uninformed and clueless

If I'm so ill-informed by snopes -- how come you can't find one single article of theirs I read which they got wrong?

I can show you Fox News getting a story wrong which has a much bigger audience of rightards and is dumbing them down.

 

[Faun]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

Oh? What's the lie?

 

[Coyote]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

 

[Coyote]

I think like any other media snopes can be wrong, and they've printed corrections, but I don't think it's a deliberate attempt to mislead nor is it any large scale pattern. Multiple independent groups have found them to be pretty reliable and unbiased.

 

[tinydancer]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

Oh? What's the lie?

That he mocked the reporter with a disability.

 

[Faun]

And another...

Okay, I'm confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.

Here (Flights of Fancy) is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I've found say Snopes changed their answer from "False" to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says "false" and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.

What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?

Flights resumed on 9/13 ...

CNN.com - Flights resume, but situation remains tense - September 14, 2001

Here's A story of the Saudi's begin flown out on 9/13...

October 2003: Craig Unger Saudia Arabia

....while the pilot recalled all flights were grounded, he might not have been aware that order was lifted earlier that same morning.

The snopes article reads...

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.​

So where are they wrong?

 

[Faun]

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

Oh? What's the lie?

That he mocked the reporter with a disability.

Looks genuine to me as he's flailing his arms while speaking as the journalist with disabled arms.

 

[westwall]

And another...

Okay, I'm confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.

Here (Flights of Fancy) is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I've found say Snopes changed their answer from "False" to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says "false" and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.

What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?

Flights resumed on 9/13 ...

CNN.com - Flights resume, but situation remains tense - September 14, 2001

Here's A story of the Saudi's begin flown out on 9/13...

October 2003: Craig Unger Saudia Arabia

....while the pilot recalled all flights were grounded, he might not have been aware that order was lifted earlier that same morning.

The snopes article reads...

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.​

So where are they wrong?

Yes. They were. They were also wrong in not acknowledging that the crashed airplane photo was photo shopped. I grant you it's mainly a joke, but the fact remains that the picture isn't real, and they say it is. There are many, many more. Most are harmless, such as the airplane crash picture, but there are some that are outright fiction. There are plenty of threads on the Straight Dope website that show the errors they have made and their unwillingness to change them.

 

[westwall]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

 

[Coyote]

Still waiting for those links to snopes articles they got wrong.

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

 

[Faun]

And another...

Okay, I'm confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.

Here (Flights of Fancy) is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I've found say Snopes changed their answer from "False" to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says "false" and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.

What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?

Flights resumed on 9/13 ...

CNN.com - Flights resume, but situation remains tense - September 14, 2001

Here's A story of the Saudi's begin flown out on 9/13...

October 2003: Craig Unger Saudia Arabia

....while the pilot recalled all flights were grounded, he might not have been aware that order was lifted earlier that same morning.

The snopes article reads...

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.​

So where are they wrong?

Yes. They were.

Don't just say they were wrong ... prove it. The Saudi's would have had to fly out on the 12th. Prove that happened....

They were also wrong in not acknowledging that the crashed airplane photo was photo shopped. I grant you it's mainly a joke, but the fact remains that the picture isn't real, and they say it is. There are many, many more. Most are harmless, such as the airplane crash picture, but there are some that are outright fiction. There are plenty of threads on the Straight Dope website that show the errors they have made and their unwillingness to change them.

There are 2 photos and the first one appears untouched. The second photo shows the sign in it's actual location, but flipped it so the contents would be visible. I agree there should be notice the second image was touched but they still got the article right.

The claim: Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.

Status: True

and it is true.

If the bet you can muster is them posting a touched up photo along with an untouched photo to show their rating of true is accurate, you've got nothing.

Find an article they rated wrong...?

Personally, I believe just on odds alone, there's gotta be at least one -- but I've yet to find one.

They do lean left in that most of their articles debunk rightarded nonsense more than lefttarded nonsense, but so what, who gives a fuck? It's accuracy that matters, not hurt feelings because they're not balanced.

 

[westwall]

And another...

Okay, I'm confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.

Here (Flights of Fancy) is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I've found say Snopes changed their answer from "False" to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says "false" and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.

What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?

Flights resumed on 9/13 ...

CNN.com - Flights resume, but situation remains tense - September 14, 2001

Here's A story of the Saudi's begin flown out on 9/13...

October 2003: Craig Unger Saudia Arabia

....while the pilot recalled all flights were grounded, he might not have been aware that order was lifted earlier that same morning.

The snopes article reads...

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.​

So where are they wrong?

Yes. They were.

Don't just say they were wrong ... prove it. The Saudi's would have had to fly out on the 12th. Prove that happened....

They were also wrong in not acknowledging that the crashed airplane photo was photo shopped. I grant you it's mainly a joke, but the fact remains that the picture isn't real, and they say it is. There are many, many more. Most are harmless, such as the airplane crash picture, but there are some that are outright fiction. There are plenty of threads on the Straight Dope website that show the errors they have made and their unwillingness to change them.

There are 2 photos and the first one appears untouched. The second photo shows the sign in it's actual location, but flipped it so the contents would be visible. I agree there should be notice the second image was touched but they still got the article right.

The claim: Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.

Status: True

and it is true.

If the bet you can muster is them posting a touched up photo along with an untouched photo to show their rating of true is accurate, you've got nothing.

Find an article they rated wrong...?

Personally, I believe just on odds alone, there's gotta be at least one -- but I've yet to find one.

They do lean left in that most of their articles debunk rightarded nonsense more than lefttarded nonsense, but so what, who gives a fuck? It's accuracy that matters, not hurt feelings because they're not balanced.

You've been shown several. Like a typical prog though, you ignore them.