Horrible source for anything but DNC propaganda, 1 star is overstating its credibility. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues
Mixing truth with lies just like crafty devils! The truth comes with the things that are unimportant and irrelevant to your lives, manipulating the unaware niave souls that stumble upon their influence into believing that they are a legitimate and trustworthy source and steer those same people the wrong direction when it comes to issues and rumors that matter. That's where they spin their lies like bosses of deception. If you like your b.s. sugar-coated by all means grab a big helping of Snopes.com. Soros money has a big part to play in this snake oil source. "Fact checkers" of fake news are they? Snopes is fake new. They're right there with CNN and the rest. Boycott and rebuke their misinformation campaign. When you hear someone refer to Snopes then shout FAKE NEWS.
Empirical evidence proves it to be politically bias and articles of higher relevance have outright lies and misinformation, often leaning way left.
I am dismayed to know that Snopes has joined the political bias bandwagon and is not being forthright in it's postings. I can not put any faith in a myth busting company that does not fairly and accurately post findings. Shame on you, Snopes.
Snopes spends all of its time attacking any narrative or theory that is anti-establishment. Whatever the mainstream media anoints as "truthful" or "not truthful" then they go with that. The Establishment has the final word on pretty much anything in politics and government/corporate activity. Today, one trend we see in the MSM is that Russia and Putin are villains. It doesn't matter what any other non-western news organization says, if the NYT led amen corner of the media repeats all State Department chatter that Russia is a villain, then that's what is true. Snopes will concede to this narrative, and any narrative that supports the government's claims. They ignore inconvenient truths about stories that work against the Democratic and liberal narrative. Go look at the fact that Al Gore bought a mansion at Montecito, CA beach. You will NOT find a Snopes posting for that. It's too damaging and so they wont' touch it or bring more attention to it. They are biased. They prefer to go after Dem vs GOP clickbait stories. They chase every GOP or right wing email circulating about Dems or liberal positions. They even tread carefully when covering the Sanders campaign re the "chair throwing" claims by pro-Hillary sources. They want to leave the door open. But with Hillary Clinton's email issues and Director Comey's conclusion that she didn't do anything wrong is posted by Snopes as the last word in the matter (Establishment). Yet, a little bit of searching will find that many others have gone to prison and been fined for much less. In closing, it is my personal opinion that Snopes are a voluntary or paid agency that Obama appointed Information Czar Cass Sunstein advocated on page 14 of his white paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" where he called for agents to engage in counterspeech against people ----
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
That's why I don't use Snopes and discourage anyone from using them.
Snopes used to be the go-to website to debunk the various urban legends that run around the internet like mosquitoes in August. It is still somewhat passable for non-political myths. When it comes to politics, it's biased - it ignores many true conservative "myths", ostensibly to avoid having to declare them true. It rates as false many inconclusive issues. It's actually very sad.
First of all, how are they suppose to be the end-all be-all central information source for things typically controversial or hearsay or "conspiracy theory", when the truth is likely that we just don't know the truth in many of these cases. The final straw came the other day when I looked up something knowing that it was inconclusive (but deemed as a big fat FALSE by snopes), and I could no longer ignore how this site is simply incapable of leaving their own personal bias out of these topics. This wasn't the first time I had noticed this. The fact that they throw around the term conspiracy (in any ideas going against the mainstream media) in the grade-school manner that they do, proves that they are not fit to be keepers of the truth. How about call it what it is- it's a personal opinion blog with a little research occasionally thrown in.
just went to an article they have in relation to the 27 year old DNC director of data being shot dead (and wikileaks offering 20k for info on the murderers) and i found their article contains the infantile term: "conspiracy theory" SEVEN times and the word 'conspiracy' on its own, a further 3 times...Childish nonsense
To say that this first ever visit to snopes.com diminishes their credibility in my eyes is a gross understatement. . Not going to waste my time on that site again.
Snopes does not come close to deserving the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible which it definitely is not.
Snopes at one time was considered the final wordauthority of hard to determine claims made in articles and or broadcasted on television and or the radio.
Snopes once grew to be a reliable source to millions of Americans, including national leaders, who once relied on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction.
Cited by many, Snopes was once considered the final word on both frivolous and important stories, however Snopes was not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect but rather, was the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a trailer park in a Los Angeles suburb.
The Mikkelsons were excellent investigators. They deserve the respect the garnered in the past, however Snopes present day has become a blog with click-bait articles that frankly are done by some very unethical and incompetent writers.
One of our writers at Get Off The Bs has been the recent target of two of Snopes so-called investigative journalists. In Brian Michaels article entitled Deceased FBI Agent Found At Trump Tower With Silenced Pistol, Kim LaCapria writing for Snopes, wrote in her article entitled Whack the Dog, that our article was proven false by Snopes, however she sdid not provide one single source to back up her allegations.
When our Brenda Corpian challenged her about not providing any sources supporting her allegations, other than her own rantings, she Tweeted that she could basically write whatever the he** she wants to, regardless if it is accurate or not. LaCapria followed up her Tweet by blocking Brenda on Facebook and Twitter.
Not surprisingly, LaCapria proudly signs her hit piece articles with a picture of herself sipping from a coffee cup with writing on it that suggests she enjoys swallowing mens semen. I cant imagine how the MiKellsons are proud of that.
In another article by Brian entitled Anonymous Leaks Clinton Payoff To Khan, David Emery writing for Snopes wrote in his article entitled Rank Statement, claimed that Brians article was Unproven based on Emery debunking a sample document listed in the article as altered.
I give Emery credit where credit is due. The document Brian posted in the article, a copy of a bank statement linking Khan to a $375,000 payment by the Clinton foundation is absolutely altered. For those of you who just gasped, please read on.
Why I am screaming FOUL is because if Emery had bothered to read the article he would of found three disclaimers clearly stated in Brians article, including the following:
We apologize to anyone ignorant enough to believe that anyone within their right mind would post anything closely resembling an original bank statement hacked from a prominent lawyers law firm server. That said, if we did not know for a fact by seeing and verifying the original document, you would not be reading about it on this blog. If you choose not believe it, we understand.
For those of you who have read our About Us and FAQs pages, my husband and I freely admit that we are not professional journalists, however as inexperienced as I am in investigative journalism, before I wrote the crap Emery wrote in his article, I would of definitely read the article I was bashing first. The first red flag I would have wanted to clearly understand is why a blog with an impeccable reputation for telling the truth, that has no financial motivation to publish a falsehood, i.e, there is no paid advertising on Get Off The Bs, would post an original hacked [stolen] document ripped off by a hacker from a prominent law firms computer server.
We may give our readers and or the writers at Snopes too much credit, but even without the three notices in the article notifying our readers that the bank statement had been severely altered, we would expect any intelligent person, especially an investigative journalist for Snopes, to realize that there is no way in Hades we nor anyone else with a lick of sense, would put ourselves in the kind of trouble that would surely arise from posting the hacked original bank statement from anybodys server, let alone a law firm.
We are not the only one who has had problems with Snopes new breed of investigative journalists. In performing a Google search using the keywords, complaints about Snopes, Google search returned 171,000 results, including some very nasty complaints made to Ripoff Report and Site Jabber.
In fact Site Jabber, one of the top web site ranking sites on the internet, rates Snopes at 3.2 stars out of possible maximum rating of 5 stars. Considering the previous reputation of Snopes, that is quite a fall from grace.
In doing a search on Facebook, I found that in January of 2012 someone on Facebook created a page entitled Snopes Lies. The about section of the heavily trafficked page states that the publishers purpose is, This site is to help expose the misinformation snopes.com feeds the American public.
Ron of Springfield Illinois wrote in his complaint to Ripoff Report that perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn't a doctored photo.
Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble's logo is really satanic. Snopes.com is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don't count on them being fair and balanced when it comes to anything political or religious.
Although I would of agreed 10 years ago with Rons statement about Snopes, I do not agree with him today because with the merry band of investigative idiots my staff and I have been exposed to from Snopes this week, I am not sure they could debunk the rumor that Elvis Presley is alive and well, living on Mars.
This is Brenda Corpian reporting for Get Off the Bs with one final message to Snopes. When the general election is over maybe you can hire Lyin Crooked Hillary Clinton to write for your blog. There is no doubt she will fit right in with Kim LaCapria and David Emery.
I recently checked some things on Snopes just to see if they were biased and I was amazed. I had heard that they were/or became so. Maybe they dont mean to but what they should do is present facts only and they instead impart opinion leaving out facts.
Example -- re the recent "ransom" matter with Iran -- they put that it was "false" that they paid ransom noting what Obama admin was saying. I think a lot of people would disagree this conclusion. They should simply put the facts (including new data from released hostage) and let people decide themselves --- not what a site like this should be doing! If you simply want someone to side with you on the democratic/liberal side then this is a site for you!
They ae wrong on the Hillary Clinton has Muslim advisor. Huma Abedin is the daughter of parents involved with Muslim brotherhood and she has her name on publication that are easily looked up and show her name as well as known people involved with blind Shiek who has been in jail in US for years for terrorist acts. She may be completely pro- American, but the ties are definitely there and the American people should be aware of this. Snopes ignores this completely. Many times they are good, but their politics gets in the way at times. Especially during election years?? Perhaps??
I would like to know why I was kicked off your group when I simply made a reasonable comment about something that was posted. I used no harsh words only the truth. I thought your page is to find out the real truth?
And I was blocked from sending messages to snope asking. I was only clearly making a truthful comment and I get deleted and blocked.
That's not good to hear when they say they have the truth about averything online. Is the page truthful to the people ? I think not.
I would give them zero stars if I could. I went to Snopes.com to find out if it is true thatless than 20% of donations to the Susan G. Komen Foundation actually go toward cancer research. The article Snopes.com posts on this topic gives a long-winded discussion that does discuss the high salaries of top employees at Komen but then digresses into a sermon about how many charities have other goals besides just funding research so it really is still good to contribute to them - however, they don't tie this to Komen at all by discussing whether Komen supports other goals. I found this very disappointing and offensive that they would try to "spin" charitable contributions this way. Snopes.com, in my opinion, should be a fact-based website and this clearly strayed from facts about Komen. I decided to share my opinion on this with them using their "Contact Us" feature. I received the following reply from them:
"Your comments evince a flawed understanding of the item you remarked upon.
For best results, we recommend ensuring you carefully read and thoroughly comprehend articles prior to submitting comments on their contents."
This was simply rude and uncalled for. When I attempted to respond to them I received an automated message from my e-mail provider that my message was undeliverable. I'm presuming that means they blocked further communication from my e-mail address. Rude and shocking. I will never rely on Snopes.com for information again. I have many other options.
This is probably my favorite site. I love posting a link debunking a Facebook friend's repost whenever possible, but on a serious note, this place is extremely informative and I'm a fan of how easy it is to find what you're looking for.
If you are on Facebook, this site is indispensable. I've lost count of the number of times that I've been able to go to this site to quickly debunk some nonsense being spread around by gullible friends, with just a few clicks and a copy/paste. It's amazing what people will believe, even some folks that I thought were pretty savvy.
I honestly can't rate it reliable...I was directed to snopes for the very first time when I was conducting research on the credibility of a certain local enterprise. The info labelled as "fact" by snopes looked like it came directly from the public relations department of the company in question, and the "facts" provided I KNOW FOR A FACT are false. This is based on my personal experience.
So snopes does have a bias towards certain entities. Therefore I have to take the rest of their "facts" at face value.
I have always checked Snopes instantly upon receiving any email which urges me to send it on to all my friends. That is the big red flag. Invariably these chain emails do turn out to be hoaxes.
One of the stupidest hoax recommendations: Everyone should drink 8 glasses of water per day. The history of this stupidity comes from the dropping off from a government recommendation of the all-crucial statement: "Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods and propagation of the error in Dr. Erwin Stillmans publication in 1967, the Doctors Quick Weight Loss Diet, which sold 12 million copies, apparently without being factually checked. A book by a "Doctor", with its gross error, tends to be trusted by 12 million naive readers. For further details read: http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/howmuchwater.htm .
BTW, there is one exceptional condition when drinking enough water on a regular basis may have very real medical value. I am told by a good friend that he totally stopped his frequent incidence of kidney stones by continuously drinking enough water. He claims that, in his particular case, this prevents the seeding of the crystals which lead to the kidney stones. That, to me, is a plausible mechanism. Comments from others on this subject are invited.
3 Questions & Answers
Business owners: What’s your side of the story?
Manage your business