Snopes Thinks It Is MSNBC, But Wonders Why It’s Dying

Snopes.com has become a poor man's Huffington Post, fact-checking Christian satire and propping up left-wing crusades.

The financial woes of famed internet-rumor snoopers Snopes led recently to a GoFundMe page where grateful readers could donate to keep them alive. Apparently that effort was successful for the time being. But for their part, Snopes seems determined to bury their own organization under a heap of humiliation and bizarre bias.

Gone are the days when Snopes was known for diligently getting to the bottom of the “Morgan Freeman is dead” or the “CDC Says the Flu Shot is Causing a Deadly Outbreak” rumors. Instead, here were the latest articles posted on their website as of the time of this writing:

  • Did Colorado Democrats Pass a ‘Gun Confiscation’ Bill?
  • Did President Obama Bow to Ayatollah Khamenei?
  • Sanctions on Iran Could Cost U.S., European Companies Billions
  • Trump Suggests Revoking Reporters’ Credentials
  • Did Major General Paul D. Eaton Say Trump’s Decertifying Iran Deal ‘Dishonors America’?

In other words, it reads like the front page of MSNBC. What makes this so ridiculous is that just two years ago, Snopes founder David Mikkelson did an interview with Kristie Lu Stout of CNN where the two bragged about Snopes’ independent, agenda-less objectivity.

Life comes at you fast, I suppose. Now those objective researchers are regularly fact-checking satire if it dares to embarrass the left. Remember back in March, Snopes went out of their way to fact-check the Christian satirical website The Babylon Bee for its article hilariously titled, “CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication.”

They haven’t learned their lesson, apparently:

The online fact-checking source Snopes.com has repeated a debunked claim that only three percent of Planned Parenthood's funding goes to abortions while critiquing a satirical article.

In response to the news that comedian Billy Cosby was found guilty of sexual assault, the Babylon Bee posted a satire article on Apr. 27 titled "Planned Parenthood Defends Bill Cosby: 'Sexual Assault Is Only 3% Of What He Does.'"

First of all, that is a stellar double dig at both Cosby’s sins and Planned Parenthood’s laughably outrageous statistical distortion. And that’s apparently what made the liberal overlords at Snopes a little disgruntled. In their “fact-check” Snopes went on to parrot Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortion is only 3% of what they do.

That has been fully debunked by groups like Live Action, and even the Washington Post scoffed at Planned Parenthood’s fake stat. But it’s good enough for Snopes, as they justified the abortion giant’s claim by using the research and documentation of…Planned Parenthood.

No wonder Snopes needs GoFundMe to prop it up. Somewhere along the line they decided to be a poor man’s Huffington Post.

Comments
No. 1-4
daveburton
daveburton

Snopes used to be pretty good. Unfortunately, Snopes is not the generally trustworthy organization that it used to be.

http://www.TruthOrFiction.com/ is less comprehensive, but <b>much</b> more trustworthy.

Snopes used to be run entirely by Barbara and David Mikkelson. When Barbara was there Snopes was pretty good. They leaned to the left, but I think they tried to be truthful and fair, most of the time (except that they tended to be inappropriately solicitous toward President Obama, whom they really, really liked).

But Barbara & David divorced in 2015. Barbara is gone. David still writes about 20% of the Snopes articles, but he's hired other people to write the rest, and at least some of them are shockingly dishonest.

Here's a revealing <i>Daily Mail</i> article from late December, 2016, about Snopes:
http://dailym.ai/2h32avh
<a href="

Here's a January, 2017 article about how Snopes trashed the pro-life organization Live Action with a dishonest "straw man" attack:

Another of Snopes' tricks, these days, is to debunk a collection of other stories, all at once, some of which are untrue, but some of which are accurate. They lump them all together and rate the collection False. For instance, here is Snopes' deceptive combined critique of a DailyCaller report plus an unrelated "fake news" Facebook page:

Here's DailyCaller's rebuttal:

JBBooks
JBBooks

Anyone who didn't realize long ago that Snopes was liberally biased has been living under a rock.

etbass
etbass

Snopes used to be a good reference for debunking pop culture rumors and stupid email chains. Once they decided to dive into politics, it all started going downhill. Then when they lie and claim to be independent and objective, and I can clearly see they are not, I do not trust anything they publish. A fact-checking website that cannot be trusted is worthless.

BenjaminD
BenjaminD

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Peter. I recall several articles on this website asking for financial help.

I think it is the nature of the changing media landscape. People are consuming media differently. There are thousands of people with strong opinions who can write for free and post on Facebook. Dozens of channels on YouTube that are a single person who can live off the ads shown before videos. Or people who can get sponsors for their videos.

The fact that a website is having financial trouble is not really an indicator of low quality. I think the resurgent posts great articles. I just don't think the financial side of a blogging website makes sense in 2018.