Is Snopes a Left-Wing Mouthpiece?

[NYcarbineer]

They certainly seem to be biased that way.

In the rightwing paranoid victimology everyone-is-out-to-get-us world,

of course it is.

 

[rightwinger]

snopes.com Politics George W. Bush

Yes, Snopes spends a great deal of bandwidth smearing Bush.

Seems like they are defending him

 

[rightwinger]

They certainly seem to be biased that way.

They're even handed. What looks like bias is just the reflection of yours. What they put out aren't just opinions. They provide cites and facts to back up their positions.

snopes provides their sources

Anyonce challenging them is welcome to provide better evidence. I have yet to see a republican even try

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well the lefties are manning their bunkers on this one. The more they scream anything down, the more veracity you know the subject at hand possesses. To me the OP title is simply a muse. It shoud be obvious to anyone who thinks, that Snopes is a DNC sock.

The more people disagree with you, the more correct you must be, huh? That's a lovely piece of batshit.

Can you give us an example of Snopes being inaccurate in a political way? Or is this just more vague insinuation backed by exactly dick?

It's called Right-Wing logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

snopes.com Politics George W. Bush

Yes, Snopes spends a great deal of bandwidth smearing Bush.

How about you entertain us with some cases where snopes has gotten it wrong,

and, while you're at it,

prove that they've gotten it wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

CHAIN EMAIL'S ... the life blood of RW dupes, drones, dolts, and rubes.

Obama knows you Communists would never send any...


Left-wing Virals And Hoaxes - Chain-Smashers mixxt

 

[Statistikhengst]

They certainly seem to be biased that way.

Absolutely. The founders are far left. You didn't know that?

Meet "snopes".
David and Barbara Mikkelson.
They have no experience, no qualifications, no research teams - it's a husband and wife team and they are highly over rated. imo.


I have to remove that photo - they look so satisfied to be getting away with this scam. No press for them.


One of them is supposedly a Canadian citizen - both are said to be far left socialists - Obama puppets - there were rumors that George Soros funded them. If you investigate some of their fact checking you'll find they have claimed true stories to be false and false to be true. Obama must be so proud. I would never use their website for fact checking. Ever.

Snopes was started in 1995, when Clinton was president, and occupies itself mostly with debunking urban legends.

Quote:

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.

Snopes.com - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Poor Righties, they simply bitch about everything under the sun. Fun!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Is Snopes.com infallible


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#hqKEkKPC2ahXC15I.99

What total bunk. Instead of saying they are wrong or right with stories they ask the tough question. Can Snopes ever make a mistake?

Stupid

 

[rightwinger]

bush needed no help in smearing himself..

Yet the Mikkleson's still devoted huge effort and server resources to the task...

Why don't you show us one and we can discuss it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Snopes is only "biased" against the right, if you concede that those on the right lie more.

 

[konradv]

snopes.com Politics George W. Bush

Yes, Snopes spends a great deal of bandwidth smearing Bush.

Seems like they are defending him

Some things they say are true. Some things they say are false. That's what being even-handed means. They certainly provide more evidence and cites than an outfit like Breitbart, the darling of the right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
How about you entertain us with some cases where snopes has gotten it wrong,

and, while you're at it,

prove that they've gotten it wrong.

Much of what Snopes posts is opinion.

Slacktivism Why Snopes got it Wrong About Internet Petitions - Online Fundraising Advocacy and Social Media -
The Ten O Clock Scholar Snopes Gets It Wrong

 

[Uncensored2008]

Snopes is only "biased" against the right, if you concede that those on the right lie more.

Da Comrade - GLORIOUS Communist rulers define what is true - Running Dog Capitalists are liars by merit of opposing the GLORIOUS party!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

OK I did some more fact checking, and I stand corrected. Snopes represents both political ideologies: liberal and leftist.

 

[hjmick]

Some say yes, some say no. If you don't use Snopes to check the veracity of political claims, it doesn't matter...

 

[Clementine]

They certainly seem to be biased that way.

I agree. Even when an email regarding a liberal scandal is true, they don't get into details and will say it's somewhat true, but gloss over the negatives and pick on one insignificant fact that is false.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is an example of how dastardly LEFT WING Snopes is!!

Behold:

snopes.com George W. Bush Refuses to Sell Home to Blacks

Claim: Texas governor George W. Bush "refused to sell his home to blacks."

Status: False.

It was about this false email:

"Brothers and Sisters, please read and pass along. We must remember this at the polls, and choose wisely. Whites-only covenant shows Bush's true colors.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush recently sent waves through the Black community following a discovery that a Dallas house he sold in 1995 carries a racial covenant, which restricts the sale of the house to white people only. Bush and his wife, Laura, bought the house in 1988. How is this legal? It isn't.

The Fair Housing Act prevents the enforcement of racial covenants. However, many houses still carry them as a remnant of the Jim Crow era when it was common practice to exclude Blacks from buying houses and living in white neighborhoods. The Bush campaign responded with a online statement saying that the racial covenant was void and that Bush was unaware of it when he sold the house. Yeah right! It's extremely irresponsible for a public figure to accidentally overlook such a stipulation. Did Bush really know but just didn't care to do anything about it? The real estate agent who prepared the papers for the sale said that she notified Bush of the racial covenant but that he signed the papers anyway.

Perhaps equally shocking as the racial covenant is the fact that the media has swept this story under the rug.

Have you heard about it in any of the newspapers you read or on any of the news programs you watch?

Do you give Bush the benefit of the doubt?

Was he unaware of the racial covenant during the time he and his family lived in the house, or did he know and decide that it wasn't worth having?

Should HUD initiate a law that requires all homeowners to wipe racial covenants from their deeds?

* Did the media deliberately fail to cover this story?

* Do you think it would have been handled differently if a similar story was revealed about a Black candidate?"



Snopes responded with:

Origins: Unfortunately, politics in America (especially at the national level) has long since ceased to be a matter of two candidates extolling their positive attributes and describing in detail their stands on important issues and has instead become a contest to see which party can more successfully demonize the other party's candidate.
Racial fears and racism are an important part of the process (as when the Republicans used the infamous Willie Horton commercials to help sink Michael Dukakis' presidential bid in 1988). Once again the racism card has been played against a presidential candidate, this time in charges that Texas governor (and likely Republican nominee) George W. Bush "refused to sell his house to blacks" because he once owned a home with a "whites-only" covenant. This one is, in the words of Shakespeare (or Faulkner), a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

George W. Bush purchased a house in a Dallas subdivision for $320,000 on16 November 1988 and sold it for $348,000 in January 1995, just after he was elected governor. That house was one of the 52 homes in the subdivision whose deeds included a 1939 covenant stating that "Said premises shall be used for private dwelling purposes only and by white persons only, not excluding bona fide servants of any race." Such covenants were not unusual in that era, in Dallas, in Texas, or elsewhere in the U.S.A. Similar language was used to prevent the sales of homes to groups such as Blacks, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese all over the country. In this case, however, Bush's purchase of a home with a racially exclusive clause in its deed is a non-issue because:

• The covenant was already legally void by the time Bush bought the house — the Supreme Court outlawed racially exclusive covenants in 1948, and Texas law had specifically banned them in 1984.
  
  
• Bush said he was unaware of the covenant when he bought the home, a not implausible claim. The covenant is not part of the deed that the buyer and seller see, but an addendum (part of the mapping or platting documents) filed with the county.
  
  
• Even had Bush known about the covenant, he couldn't have done much about it. Removing the exclusivity wording would have required collecting the signatures of 75% of the neighborhood's residents and undertaking a "lengthy, cumbersome and potentially expensive process" to get rid of something that no longer had any legal force in the first place.

Some people might argue that they expect more from a future President — that Bush should have investigated more thoroughly before buying his home and should have declined to buy it as a symbolic gesture even if the covenant was already null and void and could not easily have been removed. If that's the case, they have the recourse of not voting for him. As usual, though, this information is offered with the disingenuous claim that the "media has swept this story under the rug." They haven't — the story was brought out by Matt Drudge in June 1999 and received widespread media coverage at the time. If it hasn't maintained a continual prominent place in the daily news ever since, that's not an indicator that the story has been "swept under the rug," but simply that nobody finds it newsworthy any more.


As you can see, Snopes debunked it AND defended Bush, a Republican.

Damn, that was soooo Left-Wing.

 

[rightwinger]

snopes.com Politics Sarah Palin

Seems snopes even defends Sarah Palin against rumors

How "leftist" of them

 

[konradv]

OK I did some more fact checking, and I stand corrected. Snopes represents both political ideologies: liberal and leftist.

When you lean so hard to the right even people that are straight-up look like they're leaning left. You're just mad that they don't march in lock-step with your biases.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the truth is on your side - so is Snopes.