Examples of Snopes' Extreme Political Bias

[alang1216]

I contend that Snopes is not a reputable fact checking website. It is their main job, they do it poorly, and they work harder to propel a narrative that is friendly to Democrats than they do to actually determine what is true and what is false.

Here is an example. I am interested in more, and I will likely contribute more here as I come across them...

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?

AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional account of her experiences during the Capitol riot.

www.snopes.com

So the claim that they investigate is:

" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she "wasn't even in the Capitol building" when the rioting occurred. "

Instead of rating it mostly true, or a mixture, they rate it mostly false, and then state:

"What's True
Ocasio-Cortez wasn't in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located."

Included in their "fact check" are the following politically-biased statements (emphasis added):

" It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced. "

" In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t in the Capitol building” and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video."

To its credit, Snopes' main argument is that AOC never claimed she was in the Capitol building, which is an important point, but one example of "mostly-false right-wing disinformation" is a Red State headline, “AOC Wasn’t Even in the Capitol Building During Her ‘Near Death’ Experience.” Obviously, that headline is mostly true, arguably entirely true.

It just goes to show that you can't trust such websites. Wikipedia is also full of political bias these days. Their page on the Capitol riot reads like something CNN would put together.

Truth and facts are becoming harder to come by these days. When you have to fact check the fact checkers, things are pretty bad.

And social media companies will use "fact checks" like these to make censorship decisions, so they aren't simply "alternative viewpoints" on the internet; they have real-world First Amendment implications. (Please don't lecture me about private companies being able to make their own rules, I know.)

If the mob wanted to hang Pence one could only imagine what they might have done if they had found AOC. No one knew what would happen and who was in danger and bombs were found in other buildings. She was justified to be terrified and the conservative media was not justified in minimizing what she experienced with the benefit of hindsight.

Even if you give Occasional-Smolett the benefit of doubt, she was terrified. She was plainly lying when she said she could hear people going door to door yelling "where is she". No one was banging on her door. That was a lie. She lies like a democrat.

How do you know it wasn't the cops looking to see who was safe?

 

[Meathead]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Someone knocked on my door today. I was sexually assaulted.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Another example... If it had been a fact check about Republicans, they would have rated it "mostly true" or "mixture."


Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000 in White House Furnishings?

FACT CHECK: Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000 in White House Furnishings?

A recirculating rumor holds that Hillary Clinton was forced to return $200,000 in furniture, china and art she stole from the White House.

www.snopes.com

"All told, the Clintons paid back or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and other household items they had kept upon leaving office, with $86,000 of that total consisting of personal gifts they would presumably have been allowed to retain but decided to pay for to avoid the appearance of impropriety. About $50,000 of the total comprised items they had removed but were later determined to belong to the government. "

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Even if you give Occasional-Smolett the benefit of doubt, she was terrified. She was plainly lying when she said she could hear people going door to door yelling "where is she". No one was banging on her door. That was a lie. She lies like a democrat.

How do you know it wasn't the cops looking to see who was safe?

According to this, it was the cops, and she was terrified of them...

AOC hits back at Republicans claiming she was never in the Capitol

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spent Wednesday sparring with alt right provocateur Jack Posobiec, after he claimed she was lying about her traumatic experiences on January 6 during the Capitol riot.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Not to mention the obvious context that she and other legislators receive death threats regularly, and that we are in a time of profoundly increased division and emotion.

The barbarians were at the gates, and she/they were perfectly justified in fearing for their lives.

The domestic terrorists and those who enable them will never admit any of that, because that's what they are.

Barbarians at the gates?



Such a fucking drama queen.

 

[Mac1958]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Not to mention the obvious context that she and other legislators receive death threats regularly, and that we are in a time of profoundly increased division and emotion.

The barbarians were at the gates, and she/they were perfectly justified in fearing for their lives.

The domestic terrorists and those who enable them will never admit any of that, because that's what they are.

Barbarians at the gates?



Such a fucking drama queen.

It's a figure of....

Oh, never mind.

 

[pknopp]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Someone knocked on my door today. I was sexually assaulted.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I contend that Left-leaning Snopes, wittingly or not, colludes with Big Tech to propel Democrat viewpoints, while silencing Conservative viewpoints.

The bias "fact-checking" website can be used to put a disclaimer on, prevent widespread distribution of, cause to be deleted, or even ban users of social media websites, and even deplatform or otherwise cancel people and businesses.

All for speech that one could say on a public sidewalk without repercussion.

https://i.ibb.co/6g24t53/snopes01.jpg

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Not to mention the obvious context that she and other legislators receive death threats regularly, and that we are in a time of profoundly increased division and emotion.

The barbarians were at the gates, and she/they were perfectly justified in fearing for their lives.

The domestic terrorists and those who enable them will never admit any of that, because that's what they are.

Barbarians at the gates?



Such a fucking drama queen.

It's a figure of....

Oh, never mind.

Don't come at me with the "figure of speech" cop out and act like EVERYTHING YOU TYPE is not loaded with disingenuous snark.

You are shitting your pants at the thought of actually debating me. You know the ass whipping you have coming.

 

[Meathead]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Someone knocked on my door today. I was sexually assaulted.

Sorry to hear that.

I was terrified! Terrified I tell you!

 

[Mac1958]

It is mostly false. She had no idea that the protesters hadn't made it to the offices. They all were hiding.

Not to mention the obvious context that she and other legislators receive death threats regularly, and that we are in a time of profoundly increased division and emotion.

The barbarians were at the gates, and she/they were perfectly justified in fearing for their lives.

The domestic terrorists and those who enable them will never admit any of that, because that's what they are.

Barbarians at the gates?



Such a fucking drama queen.

It's a figure of....

Oh, never mind.

Don't come at me with the "figure of speech" cop out and act like EVERYTHING YOU TYPE is not loaded with disingenuous snark.

You are shitting your pants at the thought of actually debating me. You know the ass whipping you have coming.

I think I occupy far too much space in your mind.

Despite your constant leg humping, and despite your constant attempts to attack, insult and troll me, your opinion of me means nothing. Sorry.

 

[Lastamender]

I contend that Left-leaning Snopes, wittingly or not, colludes with Big Tech to propel Democrat viewpoints, while silencing Conservative viewpoints.

The bias "fact-checking" website can be used to put a disclaimer on, prevent widespread distribution of, cause to be deleted, or even ban users of social media websites, and even deplatform or otherwise cancel people and businesses.

All for speech that one could say on a public sidewalk without repercussion.

https://i.ibb.co/6g24t53/snopes01.jpg

Here is a prime example of Snopes doing absolutely no research and making false claims.

Snopes Fails Readers on Muhammad's Misdeeds

A Snopes article on a 'Muhammad' billboard is scary wrong.

thereligionofpeace.com

 

[DrLove]

Snopes has a pretty good record as is reflected in their feedback.

Is snopes.com biased?

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals?

www.snopes.com

 

[DrLove]

Here is another example, coming from the beginning of the Trump Admin.

Here is their page on a comparison of the Obama and Trump inauguration crowds....

Was Obama's Inauguration Crowd Larger Than Trump's?

While no official crowd count has yet been released for Trump's inauguration, Obama's inauguration in 2009 set a record for attendance.

www.snopes.com

It includes this well-known blurry picture comparison (a meme, no less), and you can't even tell if it is a reliable comparison, as you can't even tell if President Trump is on stage yet...

I had contacted Snopes a few times to point out the problems with their fact check, including links to these pictures. They never replied nor updated their narrative, despite it being a hot topic in the press for quite a while.

Snopes is for dopes.

LoL! The pictures were taken at exactly the same time .. when Obama and Trump put their hand on the Bible.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Snopes used to be a good, reliable, fact-checking site. In fact, it used to be THE good, reliable, fact-checking site.

To some degree, it still is, as long as whatever it's checking is not political or controversial in nature.

But since the Mikkelsons broke up, Snopes has become very unabashedly a left wrong-wing propaganda site, on almost any matter that is political; putting the LIbEral agenda ahead of any attempt at truth.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I contend that Left-leaning Snopes, wittingly or not, colludes with Big Tech to propel Democrat viewpoints, while silencing Conservative viewpoints.

The bias "fact-checking" website can be used to put a disclaimer on, prevent widespread distribution of, cause to be deleted, or even ban users of social media websites, and even deplatform or otherwise cancel people and businesses.

All for speech that one could say on a public sidewalk without repercussion.

https://i.ibb.co/6g24t53/snopes01.jpg

Here is a prime example of Snopes doing absolutely no research and making false claims.

Snopes Fails Readers on Muhammad's Misdeeds

A Snopes article on a 'Muhammad' billboard is scary wrong.

thereligionofpeace.com

Thanks. Here is the Snopes article on that one...

FACT CHECK: Are Indiana Muslims Appalled By an 'Accurate' List of Muhammad's Deeds?

A billboard displaying hate speech is nowhere near accurate.

www.snopes.com

It says, " The age of his [Muhammad's] youngest wife, Aisha, at the time of marriage is contested," LOL.

This is a pretty good article about Snopes' problem with facts, and has additional examples....

Snopes and Facts

Fact-checking the fact-checkers is an important activity in today's news cycle. Is snopes.com a truly reliable source? How can we know?

owlcation.com

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Snopes has a pretty good record as is reflected in their feedback.

Is snopes.com biased?

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals?

www.snopes.com

Please tell me that you were being sarcastic when you linked to an article hosted at snopes, written by snopes founder.

Very funny if so. If not, I pray for you.

 

[Lastamender]

I contend that Left-leaning Snopes, wittingly or not, colludes with Big Tech to propel Democrat viewpoints, while silencing Conservative viewpoints.

The bias "fact-checking" website can be used to put a disclaimer on, prevent widespread distribution of, cause to be deleted, or even ban users of social media websites, and even deplatform or otherwise cancel people and businesses.

All for speech that one could say on a public sidewalk without repercussion.

https://i.ibb.co/6g24t53/snopes01.jpg

Here is a prime example of Snopes doing absolutely no research and making false claims.

Snopes Fails Readers on Muhammad's Misdeeds

A Snopes article on a 'Muhammad' billboard is scary wrong.

thereligionofpeace.com

Thanks. Here is the Snopes article on that one...

FACT CHECK: Are Indiana Muslims Appalled By an 'Accurate' List of Muhammad's Deeds?

A billboard displaying hate speech is nowhere near accurate.

www.snopes.com

It says, " The age of his [Muhammad's] youngest wife, Aisha, at the time of marriage is contested," LOL.

This is a pretty good article about Snopes' problem with facts, and has additional examples....

Snopes and Facts

Fact-checking the fact-checkers is an important activity in today's news cycle. Is snopes.com a truly reliable source? How can we know?

owlcation.com

One might expect better of Snopes. Surely a website for which credibility is everything would do its homework and publish an accurate article with references to the Hadith and Sira... or would it?

Well, they did not. They lie.

 

[DrLove]

Snopes has a pretty good record as is reflected in their feedback.

Is snopes.com biased?

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals?

www.snopes.com

Please tell me that you were being sarcastic when you linked to an article hosted at snopes, written by snopes founder.

Very funny if so. If not, I pray for you.

Jim Jim JIM. Those are responses which prove that they piss people off on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. That would generally indicate that they are pretty much fair and balanced.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Snopes has a pretty good record as is reflected in their feedback.

Is snopes.com biased?

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals?

www.snopes.com

Please tell me that you were being sarcastic when you linked to an article hosted at snopes, written by snopes founder.

Very funny if so. If not, I pray for you.

Jim Jim JIM. Those are responses which prove that they piss people off on BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. That would generally indicate that they are pretty much fair and balanced.

I am deeply disappointed in you, Dr.Dr. Dr. Love.

Those quotes are ones that founder Mikkelson picked in a lame attempt to write a post claiming they are unbiased.

Those comments have nothing to do with whether or not their "fact checks" are accurate or biased or not. They are like Yelp reviews.

Deeply disappointed.

I shall change my funny vote for your first reply to a much-deserved dislike.

But thanks much for the clarification.