Of all of the interesting stuff I have seen in regards to President Obama one of most perplexing out there is about Snopes.com.
For those of us who routinely get spam e-mail with bad information, Snopes.com has been useful in debunking the urban legends racing across the internet.
Image from snopes.com
I recently had it spat out at me that Snopes is funded by George Soros, a liberal rich guy who allegedly funds various outlets. Guess who started this one?
Wait for it!
One of our favorite conservative talkers – Glenn Beck. Or not.
Traces back to his show on May 31, 2010, Beck stated that Soros backs Snopes.com and therefore should not be trusted as this makes them a liberal shill. In the next statement, Beck states that he and his team uses Snopes.com all of the time for information, saying what a great resource Snopes can be.
Before that, Another source states this information as well in May 2010. What this blogger fails to do is find out that Snopes co-founder Gregg Mikkelson is actually a register republican voter. And that his wife, Barbara is Canadian and ineligible to vote here. Truthorfiction.com found origins of the Snopes/Soros dating back to 2008.
The problem is there are many emails about Obama and what he said or did here or there. People who are politically opposed do not want to believe he is who he is. They can’t believe the paper work that is out there, the history that is out there. How can that not be his picture on a Columbia ID in a style that was not even used by Columbia before 1996.
According to the haters, Obama seemingly failed up the ladder after taking advantage of the affirmative action advantages available during his college years. And mixed in all of that are the fact checking sites which deny some of the crazier stuff.
So what have I found out? Media Matters is funded by Soros, Snopes is not. FactCheck is partially funded by Annenberg Foundation, whose head gave money to John McCain in his presidential run, but Snopes is not. TruthOrFiction has verified that Snopes is who they say they say they are and not funded by Soros.
With that in mind I checked out how Snopes treated former President Bush. If they really are a liberal front, would they not make sure to print falsehoods about Bush such as using the word ‘feces’ instead of ‘fetus.’ Or holding a book upside down.
What I found is that Snopes was fair to Bush. Stories that would make him look like the village idiot or a racist were proven false. Some stories that put him high on a pedestal were proven false. And some that show him as a human with good qualities were proven true.
Then I checked to see what they have on Mitt Romney. Again, it looked pretty fair and balanced.
Snopes appears to tell the truth about democrats and republicans.
So what does that tell a person?
There must be a secret conspiracy somewhere. No media outlet could be that unbiased, could it?
This is just further proof one cannot believe everything one reads – regardless of the source. Nowadays, everyone is quick to reference Wikipedia as a source of factual information. I don’t know. I find I am left shaking my head in uncertainty, not sure what information is true in the sphere of the internet.
I still trust Snopes but I am also willing to do my own digging. There is always another source. Wikipedia just makes people lazy. And I never trust anything out of Glenn Beck.
No, this article is NOT proof of what you’re saying. Of course nobody should believe everything they read from every source. And this article isn’t about “Wikipedia,” either. This article IS about SNOPES and states ENEQUIVOCALLY that, upon close examination, SNOPES turns out to be honest and truthful and not slanted toward any party or ideology — although Snopes co-founder Gregg Mikkelson is actually a registered Republican. So, Lenore Diane/Diane Lenore, you can always go to Snopes when in doubt!
I first encountered the conservative conspiracy theory about Snopes a few years ago, when I still worked in newspapers. Some reader called in with a supposed tip. I patiently explained it was just a rumor that had been going around for years (I think it was the rumor about street gangs driving around at night without their headlines on, and if you flash your lights at them, they’ll shoot you). I I referred the caller to Snopes.com. She said, “Well, I don’t believe them. They’ve got their own agenda.”
P.S. The street gang rumor isn’t true.
When the rumor you want to believe proves to be false, it must be the checker who has the political agenda and not you.
Dang, the gang rumor is not true? I bet the one where a gang member hides under your car and slashes your ankle is not true, either.
I rely on Snopes to tell the other side of the story. It is still up to me to figure out which side I believe. That is pretty much what the internet is all about, isn’t it – lots of information, but most of it is the bias of an individual writer. The truth is out there, but it will never be easy to find.
Margie, you are so correct. I really watch which websites are handing out the information and try to avoid those that lean too far one way or the other. Someone asked what I listen to on the radio and I responded straight news or a specific station because the others tend to be too polorizing. Which explains why I listen to sports radio some days as well.
Sounds like what you’re saying is that you can pretty much expect everybody to lie and that you can’t trust anyone or anything. What a hell of a world to try to live in! No, Margie, what you do first is go to a place you trust, like Snopes. Then, you go to the source and look for the actual quote or written record, not merely somebody’s opinion or interpretation of what someone did or said.
Louis – I didn’t suggest that everybody lies. I said there are at least two sides to every story, and it is up to me to look at all sides and decide which is the truth I choose. My truth might not be the same as yours, but that doesn’t mean yours is a lie.
Louis, Margie is making a good point. One should research whenever possible. Please do not attack people on my comment board. That behavior is not tolerated here.
I listen to Glenn Beck once in a while, and he finds a way to connect anything to George Soros. It’s literally like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with him, except with Soros.
I know I should listen to some of these conservative talkers some of the time but I get worked up whenever I do. I have low blood pressure and this gets it going pretty quick. Maybe sometime I should try to listen to Beck but only after a glass of wine or two.
Oh, I can’t blame you for not listening. I do listen for short amounts of time, but Beck is so manipulative and slimy that I usually have to turn him off after a few minutes. There’s only so much venom I can take.
How many showers can one take in a day?
Why? Why would you keep going back to a KNOWN, consistent LIAR for info — unless you want to know what they think so you can put your faith in its opposite.
Louis,
I believe in listening to the other side to give them a chance to change my opinion. I like knowing what I am up against. It is called being an informed participant. If you are here to take part in the conversation, I suggestion you lose the confrontational attitude so that people do not try to verbally slap you upside the head.
I rely on Snopes.com too. And it sounds like you could do research for them. Good job!
That throws quite an interesting light on the information snopes provides. Curious.
I know. You have to look at who or what organization is providing that information. When I am searching around for information, I tend to look at the provider. Right=wing or left-wing will have their own spin. I appreciate Snopes for being non-partisan.
Agreed. Nothing like research.
And how do you “KNOW” Snopes is non-partisan? Everybody, including you, have a spin on everything based on their background and education, or lack thereof. Everything need to be taken with “a grain or two of salt”. Fifty people can view the SAME incident and when asked, you WILL get fifty different observations. So what makes one true and the other untrue? Facts or your belief of facts? Your website states the founder is registered republican, another site states, Independent, so which is it?
Tom, when other fact checking sites defend another – that would be the competition – chances are they say who they are. The people that I talked about state who funds them and it has been proven by snopes’ competition they are not funded by Soros.
Just because they answer questions that do not match the answers you want does not make them a part of a greater conspiracy. I hate, hate George W. Bush for what he did to our country. And yet there are stories on Snopes that show him in a positive light. The same goes for Romney. If a group is willing to be non-partisan and shows it in their actions, then maybe they are just that. What about the sites you visit? Are they willing to look at a subject objectively or with their slant at all times?
Tom (of August 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm):
You wrote: “And how do you “KNOW” Snopes is non-partisan? Everybody, including you, have a spin on everything based on their background and education, or lack thereof”.
Tom, are you saying that everything is necessarily spin? If so, why should anyone believe anything YOU say? Besides, the writer indicated what was found to be true and explained why.
You continue, “Fifty people can view the SAME incident and when asked, you WILL get fifty different observations. So what makes one true and the other untrue?”
Tom, that’s when YOUR work should begin. First, find out WHAT different observations people make, HOW the observations differ and HOW and WHY people reached the conclusions they did. Then you analyze. Normally, that should get you where you want to go: Factville.
“Facts or your belief of facts? Your website states the founder is registered republican, another site states, Independent, so which is it?”
Tom, this site finds that the founder is a registered Republican, and the other (probably) found that his facts are “independent,” meaning “not based on partisanship”. Without reviewing the article you refer to, we have no way of kowing for certain what the case is — but if one source is reputed to have never told a lie (and most lies are can be proven true or false), common sense would dictate that you lean toward the source than has never been proven to lie. This may simply be semantic error, but you can always write to the other site and ask the writer to clarify — or you might be able to get clues from the total context — but to suggest that we are trapped in a world where we cannot know the truth of such issues as this is patently false and only serves the interests of those who wish to sew confusion and divert people away from the truth..
One thing that I find interesting is that Fox states that they have specific news time slots, and that anything outside of those time slots is commentary. O’Reilly is in such a commentary slot, so was Beck. That doesn’t prevent people from finding fault with the accuracy of their news-slot items.
I honestly believe that when it comes to reporting the news, you must, must stay neutral. Walter Cronkite has always been my example on that. As for the commentary people, I believe they can state their opinion but it must be based in fact and not what you want fact to be. Glenn Beck has no standing with me for that simple reason.
Walter Cronkite was a class act. So were the Huntley and Brinkley team. Dan Rather-Don’t get me started. Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity- They aren’t journalists, just talking heads with there own opinions and agendas. I don’t watch or listen to either of them. Chris Mathews, to me this guy is Glenn Beck except liberal. Same crap, different side of the fence.
Rumbly,
What a great post and cool comment stream! Thank you, you taught me something. These days all sources must be checked and the beauty of the Net is that you have the capability to do that with ease. There is no excuse not to. Since the media outlets are mostly owned by corporations one has to research to ensure that you are not being manipulated by someone else’s politicla agenda. Glenn Beck is pond scum
. Will definitely check out Snopes.
Boy do I miss the likes of Dan Rather…
I hear you on that one. Rather or Ted Koppel will show up as a guest on other shows and end up outclassing everyone. There is something to be said about the journalist who reports the news without being the news.
Dan Rather, oh yea, the journalist that was fired for lying about documents that were proven to be forged.
John, I hear Dan Rather speak on some shows and he is so much better than many of the people who are on these days. Ted Koppel made an appearance on Bill O’Reilly recently and put the man to shame in his steady, calm manner.
I agree that Rather is an excellent speaker, but journalist? He lost his credibility.
“noesfromrumbleycottage”. I find your comments in this string to be very biased. Your defense of snopes is admirable, however your attacks on a news commentator (Glenn Beck) is clearly biased. Everyone should understand who is reporting and also understand whether they are commenting or reporting. Glenn Beck is a commentator who is paid to comment, much like Dionne is, but the polar opposite in political bias. Please state the facts and comment and try not to target commentators. They are not news news journalists.
They may not be news journalists but they need to be responsible in what they report during their commentaries. That is what you have interns for – to do the research and make sure your facts are correct.
Did you read the one piece in which he states that Snopes is paid for by Soros as a way to discredit Snopes but then says his show uses Snopes all of the time to verify news stories. That begs the question of does Glen Beck feel Snopes is reliable or not. If you are going to say that a Soros-funded Snopes has an obvious liberal slant, why are you using that same site as a reliable source of information? If you believe the site have a liberal bias which you are criticising, can you also believe that site is a reliable source of information?
Because of hypocritical stances like that, I will never take Glenn Beck seriously. When even Fox News takes you off of their station, you might be too far off the path of rationality.
I don’t take Beck, Dionne, Mathews, Hannity, O’Rielly and many more seriosly either, becasue I know they are opinion writers (journalists) When I first saw your website, I thought, good, one without bias, but your comments proved otherwise. I wish I could find a website the reports the facts and statistics and does not add commentary. I guess that died years ago, before the internet, so I may have to give up my search. Thanks for your reply though, it surprised me. My first thought when I posted it was that I would not see it today. For that you have my admiration and respect.
Live and Let Live
Thanks for the compliment. I try to answer right away, especially when the comments are relevant. You would not believe the amount of spam I get with badly formed sentences that do not relate at all to the content of the particular blog post.
As to your point: I don’t care who they are, they need to check their facts all of the time. Glenn Beck and his fellow commentators influence a good number of people in this country. They, most of all, should be able to rattle off facts at the drop of a hat and not half-formed theories.
If someone like Glenn Beck thinks that a specific fact checking site is biased and unreliable, why then in their next breathe do they state that they use the site all of the time and find the information to be right.
I guess I demand something more from commentators.
After reading this thread I have to add my two bits. I have found Snopes to be inaccurate at times .In this I have first hand experience. Target locally stopped allowing the Salvation Army to put their ringers in front of their stores. I can not speak for the rest of the country but I know in our state this was true because as a service project to Rotary we were filling in for the ringers. Snopes reported it as false. There have been other times where the truth was more shaded. People need to look at more than one source for information because everyone has a bias. Everyone.
I just checked Snopes and saw that they have now changed Salvation Army bell ringer story at Target to “true”. They must have gotten plenty of commentary from people on this item. Perhaps that is what needs to happen. We need to call them on it when they are wrong.
Absolutely!