Snopes has been reviewed several times since this article was written in 2017. Their rating has changed to reflect changes in our methodology. They are now rated Left-Center Biased. See full review here.
We receive about 50 or more contacts per day from people submitting sources to add to the website, fact check requests and complaints and/or suggestions to improve the website. Today, I want to address a complaint that we frequently receive. This complaint involves Snopes. Almost every morning I awaken to a person saying we are wrong to list Snopes as “least biased” because they believe they are extremely liberal. This of course leads to accusations that MBFC is liberally biased. I typically don’t respond to these, but I feel now is the time to address this publicly as it happens daily. By the way, we also get mail accusing us of being extreme right. As I have said on many occasions, I see this as doing a good job. If hate mail only came from one group I would reconsider.
I want to clarify why Snopes is least biased (not unbiased), as to be completely unbiased defies human nature. We all have biases and no matter how hard we try most of us will fall victim to confirmation bias (gravitating toward information that feels right to you even though it might be wrong). I believe confirmation bias plays a huge role in how people perceive fact checkers. I also believe that the right wing media campaign to discredit fact checkers plays a significant role. When I ask people to list credible fact checkers, who are not Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck etc. I never get an answer. My thought is that if these sources are not credible there must be other credible sources. Who are they and what established criteria are they using?
When we evaluate a source we strictly use our methodology that looks at 4 criteria. Every source goes through this process. I want to break down Snopes for you so that you can see how and why it scores least biased by our criteria.
We always evaluate a minimum of 10 articles, or more, if necessary to be accurate. First, we look at wording. This starts by looking at the headlines. Do the headlines have loaded (emotional) words in them? Yes or no? We then move on to compare that the headlines match the actual content of the article. We score on a 0 – 10 scale, with 0 being perfect and 10 being dreadful. This has a subjective component as what might be dreadful to one reviewer might be more tolerable to another. Hence, why we have multiple reviewers. Back to Snopes. On wording and headlines we score Snopes at 0. Their headlines usually just ask a question and do not convey emotion or opinion. The actual content of the article matches the headline without deception. It asks the question and then answers it using sources to support the claim.
Next, we look at how factual/well sourced the articles are. Do they list sources and are they credible? In other words, are they going directly to the source, such as transcripts of what someone said and/or to low biased news agencies such as Reuters etc. On sourcing, Snopes always lists where the info comes from and when they cannot be certain they list the claim as Unproven or Mixed. On factual sourcing we score them 0 again as they are very thorough.
The third step is to look at reporting choices. Does the source report both liberal and conservative view points and do they cover them equally? Snopes fact checks everything. If you go to their page right now you will see they are covering a diverse collection of claims. On story selection we score Snopes a 2. This means that they tend to fact check more conservative claims than liberal, but not by very much. We don’t have a raw total, but a basic scan reveals it is close.
Lastly, we look at their political affiliation. This is pretty much a summary of everything we have learned through the first 3 steps and then factor in research about the people behind the website and also funding. Snopes was founded by David Mikkelson who is a political independent, and the website is funded through advertising and not corporate/political donations. Therefore, we score Snopes a 2 on political affiliation as they do cover more conservative fact checks by a very small margin and funding does not seem to be a factor.
If you add up our scores 0 + 0 + 2 + 2 = 4. and then divide this score by 4 and we get a score of 1. Any score between 0-2 is listed as least biased. Snopes is listed on the left side of least biased by our criteria, but not enough to be considered Left-Center.
I know this will not convince all that Snopes is least biased, but I hope it sheds light on the methodology and why it scores the way it does. I am certain I will have many complaints regarding why many right wing claims are false and that perhaps is another article and there is an explanation for that too.
I am expecting this article will not go over well with some.
By Dave Van Zandt
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources
Thanks for the explanation. I Use Snopes first ( for a long time) , then Factcheck and Politifact. I Don’t know any other reliable sources. Love the details of how you evaluate info.
Sarah Grantham
Sent from my iPad
>
Thanks Sarah. Our Methodology is not vetted by science (yet) and I am sure there are many holes. Our aim is only to point in the right direction. I think we do this. We are not trying to be the definitive source, but the means to give people the tools to look further and to question.
They tend to refute strawmen sometimes. They will exaggerate a position just to refute it.
Jeff Thompson, not disputing your claim (or agreeing with it), but can you provide examples of Snopes setting up strawman positions, exaggerating the position just to refute it?
I think people sometimes read the Snopes Facebook page & conflate it with the website. Articles on the FB page aren’t posted by Snopes and can have very suggestive titles etc (and people get a good kicking in the comments).
I do wonder if fact checking sites see an up turn of one sort of story or another dependent on who is in power? If our friends in Macedonia etc realise that one sort of story will get more clicks (eg Trump outrage stories) presumably they’ll push more of it out, leading to more fact checking and a feeling that one side or another is getting targeted?
Thank you for such a well written explanation for your rating of Snopes. It was very clear and a fair assessment. I do have one question for you which you did not ask yourselves nor did you ask us. You stated, “Therefore, we score Snopes a 2 on political affiliation as they do cover more conservative fact checks by a very small margin and funding does not seem to be a factor.” This is assuming an equal bombardment of statements from both sides that need fact-checking. The question is, does Snopes cover more conservative fact checks because they have an ever so slightly more liberal bias, or is it because conservative assertions/memes simply tend to outnumber the liberal ones? To rephrase, did you “penalize” Snopes simply because the lying is not 50/50?
This is awesome. How do you have money and time to do all this research and run this site?
Perhaps another reason that Snopes is asked to research more conservative questions is because more liberals use Snopes. I have heard several conservatives say that Snopes has a liberal bias. I don’t think that is so, but if conservatives feel that way, it would stand to reason that they would use it less than liberals do. And liberals tend to be using Snopes to check on some conservative statement that they are questioning.
Thanks! I don’t have money, but I have great researchers who work for free because we all feel this is important.
I wish this site was more mainstream. Some of the ratings could use a bit more text (more than the sentence that is there, but less than a whole article). I think this site could be seen as having a mildly liberal bias, though, as conservatives are just bloomin liers.
Thank you for your clear detailing of your methodology. As a moderate Independent, I agree Snopes is least biased and would probably have given it an even lower composite score than 4.
My only suggestion for this and future sources is to use more than 10 articles on which to score their bias. As a professional auditor and analyst, the limit of 10 examples caused me to spontaneously furrow my brow and tilt my head. My colleagues would tell you that is not a good sign for the department being audited and it’s going to be a long night.
Thank you for explaining your process on Snopes. I’m amazed at how many sites claim to be neutral but are so obviously biased.
Vivian, the minimum of 10 is for new sources we have never heard of. For example, it is pretty easy to get a handle on the “Angry Patriot” with less than 10 articles. A source like Snopes, has been read 100’s of times if not more. As I pointed out, 10 is the minimum, sometimes it takes much more to get the rating accurate. It also sometimes requires more than one researcher to get it right. Also, Snopes score was 1 out of 10 for bias and not 4. A 4 would be classified on the high end of Left-Center.
It is, especially given the current attitude of rampant ‘anti-fact’and anti-intellectualism. No one knows what to believe, and as you so elegantly expressed, most people have some degree of confirmation bias. I’d like to believe some sources are just so obviously trash that ANYONE could see, but the proliferation of Breitbart refernces tell me this is not the case. haha
A little more transparency on your methodology would be helpful. Do you have specific criteria for each point on your 0-10 ratings? Or just a few points on the scale (like 0, 5, and 10)?
For example: you say that on the political affiliation scale, Snopes has a low score because the founder is a political independent and its founding source is general ad revenue rather than politically-related contributions. That sounds about as good as it gets, yet Snopes scored a 2 rather than 0.
It would be somewhat problematic if within the scale, or even part of the scale, the specific score is based on how it “feels” to the evaluator, rather than an explicitly-defined set of criteria. I understand that you try to account for issues of judgment by having multiple reviewers, but this could be one point where the methodology needlessly allows for the entry of personal opinion.
Snopes is ok as long as the reader actually reads the entire entry text and doesn’t just rely on their headline. For example, I have, on more than one occasion, found the word “False” used in a Snopes headline only to find after reading the entire text that the important fact/s in question is/are actually stated by Snopes to be “True” while some insignificant aspect of an issue is labeled as “False”, giving Snopes what appears to be the excuse for using the word “False” in the headline, instead of the more appropriate “Partially False”, or, “Partially True”. These “discrepancies and inconsistencies have discouraged me from relying on Snopes. However, since It has been awhile since I have used Snopes, maybe things have improved.
I think you guys are doing a great job, and as you mentioned at the beginning of the second paragraph, being 100%unbiased defies human nature so one shouldn’t read your evaluations as the law, but as a tool to make up their own mind, maybe hear some facts they haven’t heard before and then draw their own conclusions.
I am catching myself more often than I like being emotional about certain things and therefore reacting biased. But that is human nature. As long as we keep that in mind and as long as we take a step back once we recognize these emotional reactions, I think it’s all good.
As long as we respectfully disagree, we can all still be friends 🙂
God bless.
How can I check the bias of mediabias/factcheck?
The same way you would any website. Read it objectively, put your own personal biases aside and see what you come up with.
As a general observation snopes does a pretty good job – but sadly it does have its Achilles heel.
During the election it managed to lose the Clinton logic chip, and substantially ignored evidence for arguments against her (despite people even providing citations to detailed analyses pointing out that snopes was either factually incorrect or just ignoring evidence) – although we can’t be certain if it was blind adherence to Clinton – or fear of Trump.
You do have to read an entire Snopes article because the “True or False” is too black and white. Muslim no-go zones were labeled as false because of the fact that they won’t kill you on site, yet they still mention how it’s life threatening to still go in those areas. So they didn’t exactly refute it, they are just saying that you aren’t going to be immediately murdered if you go in.
In my opinion, there are more fake news sources and inaccurate popularizations on the right than there are on the left. If true, this would explain why Snopes, squarely in the middle, is so often perceived as leftist by people who are viewing them from the perspective of the far right. It’s comparable to the way New Yorkers speak of the sun setting on the western plains every night, a perspective Californians cannot possibly understand.
That seems reasonable Timothy. Someone calculated that 70% of our questionable websites are extreme right. This either means we review more right wing sites or they simply have more questionable sites. Several studies from well respected low biased sources have confirmed that more fake news originates from the right, but this number has been tightening since the election of Trump. As long as Snopes sources to credible information they will remain in our least biased category.
“The third step is to look at reporting choices. Does the source report both liberal and conservative view points and do they cover them equally? Snopes fact checks everything. If you go to their page right now you will see they are covering a diverse collection of claims. On story selection we score Snopes a 2. This means that they tend to fact check more conservative claims than liberal, but not by very much. We don’t have a raw total, but a basic scan reveals it is close.”
This metric concerns me a little bit. Choosing an equal amount of right and left claims to fact check isn’t being unbiased, it is being center-biased. An unbiased outlet should not even entertain the political leaning of a claim as one of the criteria for choosing whether to fact check it or not. They should target claims based on their popularity, based on whether other reputable fact checkers have already looked at them or not, and other utilitarian criteria.
It could easily turn out that one side or another was circulating a lot more, or a lot more popular, unverified claims. Lets say for the sake of argument that it is the right doing this. In that case a truly unbiased outlet would be fact checking a lot more right wing claims than left wing claims, and your metric would rate them as biased. Meanwhile a center-biased outlet might ignore major/popular right wing claims in order to fact check minor/obscure left wing claims, in pursuit of the appearance of being unbiased. They’d score better on your metric, but obviously aren’t.
To make this even more complicated I did my own fact checking of sorts on what was perceived to be a right-center article on a conservative friendly site. The news piece was reluctantly giving concern about potential descent within the party that needed to be unveiled and addressed. Further research on the author revealed 1) He wrote articles for a couple other sites but they were clearly liberal. 2) He had photos of his recent same sex marriage. 3)He was seeking referrals on Facebook for journalist that are ‘unapologetic’ in their mission. He recieved several replies with names along assurances they right for the job.
This was only one example but clearly there is a strategy in play to deceive and sabotage.
It is rather natural that there is a tendency to have more conservative fact checking, since it is a conservative government in power right now – they simply do more that matters right now. At the same time the current president have a tendency to not be stellar at telling the truth or basing his factual information on somewhat shady sources and on top of it he tend to spin it emotionally and it may even get blown up in numbers by the comments from his nearest administration, who attempts to back him up. This at large makes conservative fact checking look like it has a liberal bias, because more of the significant originators (president + cabinet + top reps) turns out some fraudulent or semifalse claims more often than it would usually have been due to the mentality of the president currently in the WH and how he communicates. just my 2c :p
Whether haters care or not, liberalism and intellectualism go hand-in-hand, so it turns out the majority of fact-check orgs are operated by liberal-leaning people. This doesn’t mean their work should be dismissed (merely because the hard right slur onslaught is relentless in condemning fact-checkers’ findings).
If your world is subject to intimidation by anti-intellectuals who condemn all attempts to expose their lack of scientific methods, do you give up? I don’t. They can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Could you translate this article into different languages? I’ve got family who aren’t so good at English who question my trust in snopes and this website. My understanding of your methodology isn’t above average, I’m afraid, but what I read on different websites and what your bias meter says about them usually line up pretty well.
as a conservative that knows snopes is currently under investigation for fraud
its super hard to take this website seriously
you cant just add fact check to your name and expect people to believe you
i read your statement on politifact that your research says its fine
where is your research? that would be a good start in believing your opinions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1315882c227f
maybe all the fact checkers are liberal leaning because liberals are the only people who would closed mindedly force their opinions on you as if they are arbiters of truth
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/29/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact-n2185076
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15183/21-lies-told-politifact-not-including-obama-got-john-nolte
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14030/politifact-and-snopes-caught-lying-about-democrats-john-nolte
when all the news are calling each other fake news
who are you to decide which is real?
I think you are doing good work here and really in it to get the truth out. I personally think snopes is liberal to a fault. But I can understand your rating it based on the methodology you use. Snopes is a sneaky type of left wing site in that it paints an automatic bias that is hard on its face to detect. I am just glad that there are people willing to hold others accountable for their bias. Even if Snopes is flying under your radar.
@ Anonymous: The sources!!!
@ Jason: “automatic bias[sic]”, say like — “alt-news”, “alt-right” and even “alt-facts”???
You’re hilarious!
Nope. Both of you are deliciously ludicrous.
I don’t agree at all .They write an article such as the one where there was a claim that NGOs are working with human trafficking and write it’s false even though the body of the paragraph says it is mostly true except for a technicality such as, the claim was that these NGOs were said to be receiving money from the traffickers . I provided a BBC link that showed the Italians did find collusion between certain NGOs and human trafficking. The claim is mostly true yet listed as false as a means to try and dispell any criticism of the NGOs in this case.
I’ll agree with the previous poster. Snopes biggest flaw is having a ruling based upon a technicality. That being said, there are some other Red flags. Any Fact Checking site should rely on non-ideological non-partisans. If you have people on the staff, particularly people at high levels who are actual politicians or have run for office, that’s a clear indication of potential bias. And indeed, this very site has classified the founder, David Mikkelson, as a political independent.
In Snopes case, the founder’s wife Elyssa Young is a prominent staffer and a partisan. Specifically she ran for Congress in Hawaii on a Libertarian anti-Bush campaign.
At the very least, the above article should be edited to at least mention this, as it’s a fact that many would find significant.
Would like to donate, but Paypal asks for an US phone number I believe. I only have a Swiss and a Malaysian one, so I can not pay.
@ Valentin: Oh, Great…!!! 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 (Literally, the non-sarcastic, serious one..)
So which are you willing to donate? Snopes®, or this very place i.e. MBFC? Because if it’s the latter, then it’s significantly odd that you would randomly choose this blog-post to throw light on the hindrance to your philanthropy rather using the contact form or perhaps, even some other random blog-post, regardless of its commenting-footfall.
Anyways, if it’s indeed the latter — then I’m more than willing to help as long as you’re willing to at least sincerely, formally “Thank” me.
<abbr title="Huh.. That's odd. Why would there be a mandatory-requirement to punch in a telephonic contact info if it's PayPal®? Even if it's, you could still have a virtual contact # based in "the States". But PayPal® of all places, no freakin' way..!?! They truly are international. So there must be something wrong with your system/IP collection for this to occur. Are you using VPN? Is your PayPal® account based in US? If so and you don't wanna change it, you can pay without logging-in and getting the transaction registered in the logs.
I checked from a genuine, NGN (non-VPN) internet connection on my Android® and didn’t find any issue whatsoever.. Save for Malaysia which somehow is not supported in PayPal® Mobile (guest checkout) payment system. But if you do already have a genuine account, you shouldn’t have any issue whatsoever. Moreover, be wary of the fact that you can’t enter any number from any country. The number should be from the same country your payment-card was issued in. Gotcha’? ALSO, a pro-tip is to be honest in this gesture of philanthropy and use the card only from that country where you mostly stay. “Why?” Simply because as PayPal® services are operated and maintained miscellaneous holding companies across the globe, you’ll have less likely chance of incurring bank-charges+taxes (if the latter’s applicable) for “international transaction”. Unless of course, your bank explicitly claims to not charge/have waived it.”>Hovering your cursor/pointer here constitutes as your full-consent to my conditions stated above.
I just wanted to know all the “unaccounted for” is not considered “missing” by Snopes without explaining why and it is not considered biased? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-lost-6-billion-at-state-dept/
Or are they? One of their writers worked for Inquistr which does raise concerns.
@Sam Santra: Not “unaccounted for[sic]”, but ‘improperly accounted’ for! Sounds like you’re performing the backflip of ignoratio elenchi just to legitimise a Trump narrative or at best, a “both sides” hokum. While I’m certainly not Pro-Hillary [owing to her cliché foreign-policies] and Snopes® may or may not be one. But since you’ve already made-up your mind on that investigation by misrepresenting, here’s a PolitiFact® investigation of the origin claim:
https://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-says-6-billion-went-missing-state-de
Spoile Alert: It’s rated “Pants on 🔥!”. If you still can’t unsurprisingly grasp how that doesn’t satisfy the primary and literal definition of the term ‘missing’ — then you need both of a linguist and perhaps, even a bureaucrat to spell-out intricately “how does that work”. Of course, if you’re a believer in the so called “Deep State” — then nothing else is relevant.
@Jacob: Which “Inquisitr® writer”? May you name-name her/him? Sure her/his domain extends beyond investigating the satire?
Also, whatabout listening to the value of the argument rather the character of a person spouting the same (vide Conservative defences of fear and hate monger Alex Jones (no salutation whatsoever), et al.)? Or as the default rule on every “Conservative” tact applies: “It’s valid as long as it suits us, and ceases to be as soon as it’s no longer”? ‘Coincidentally’, a tact which heavily implies that self-styled “Conservatives” exist in some parallel-universe, where the narratives can exist, go exist and re-exist based upon their suitability to the convenience of agendas.
It never ceases to amaze me how many knuckle dragging, brain washed, gullible simpletons deep throat without question-or an iota of critical thinking-almost ANY garbage that the narcissistic imbecile occupying the Whitehouse spews from his inarticulate face-hole, Lmfao! Let me say this task slowly for the right wing dunces who spend their days regurgitating dumbed down, idiotic talking points dictated to the right wing sheep at an easily understandable 3rd grade level–lol! These confused morons slurp up the wacko, info-tainment, AM radio garbage shows and the words squealed by hypocritical, laughingstock ass-clowns like Pus Limbaugh, Michael Sewage & the other brain dead, screaming coward punks who hide in their little nut-case, ‘shock-jock radio personality’ versions of ‘Mommy’s basement’, haha. Read my lips, cuntservative nutjobs: TRUMP IS AN EMOTIONALLY STUNTED MAN-CHILD WITH A MICRO-PENIS SYNDROME! 😜 Anyone who protests and had that much insecurity and an obvious complex about his widdle weenie…well, let’s just say that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. (Or in trump-the-bitch-tard’s case, where there’s laughing and pointing at the fake, orange knuckle dragger, there’s trump’s man-clit! BWAHAHAHA!!!) You may go now, troglodyte, right wing punks. You’re dismissed.
Talk about ” ‘shock-jock radio personality’ “, are you ok minidong? I now see it was 4am on a Saturday, you deserve a pass.
Useful site, thank you! From reading this I get the feeling Snopes is probably more slanted left left than a 2, after all it’s the fact that so many take issue with it that you wrote the piece.
Regarding your methodology I too furrowed a brow at a sample of about 10, science with few data points is not science at all. But I immediately recognized you have limited time and resources, so you get a pass too. For now.
Secondly you appeared to count the same score twice. Reporting Choice and Political Affiliation got two points each, but both times was for reporting on more conservative topics.
I don’t see why you would do this, if you want to weight it, you could give it a 4 in a single category? So, my math is 0+0+2+0 /4=.5, almost dead center with just a light blush tone on the cheeks.
I realize my reasoning refutes my original claim, you know, like reading a Snopes article.
@Sean Delaney: In order for anybody to better respond to your dismissal of Mr “@Donald Minidog”‘s very “un-PCSJW” comments aimed at Trump-favouring Conservatives as “early morning jitters”( paraphrased), it begs-the-question that in which timestamps are the timezone displayed in.
Emphasising on the second-clause of your sentence, your consideration of said “fact” morphs into a logical fallacy. Need I specifically-name[ in technical-terms] which one?
…Reporting Choice and Political Affiliation got two points each, but both times was for reporting on more conservative topics. And the point being? Are you vying for another logical-fallacy? Both of the factors are scored by the merits of their work, rather how they “ought to be treated”. Regardless, the article did account for error-margins even though doing so may itself verge towards logically-fallacious, subjective scoring.( Vide Mr “@Dan”‘s comment.) Don’t just insinuate, be upfront. And an obligatory disclaimer: Civilly, if not politely. Speaking of “obligations”, need I name that 2nd logical-fallacy, as well?
: Hehe! Saw what you did there.
Minidong is malding so much I love it. 3 years down, only 5 more to go. Stay strong, buddy. You can do it! 🙂
I wouldn’t put snopes on ‘least biased’. Definitely, should be taken out of the list.
Dave, you’ve made this website a staple in my news diet. You’re doing a global service, so thank you.
I do wish you’d get around to rating Type Investigations (formerly The Investigative Fund), as they’re one of my favorite in-depth news outlets. Just a request, not a complaint. You’re doing beautiful work, keep it up. 😀
I’m moderate to left-leaning. I perceive Snopes to have a slightly left-leaning bias; however that might happen because there are simply so many more right-wing claims to investigate than left-wing ones, especially since Trump’s election.
Yes!
Hello Mr. Van Zandt. I read your article about snopes. I appreciate your defined methods of “rating” sources. I just want to point out the simple but particularly glaring reason why you are wrong. In your review you mention the right wing media campaign to discredit fact checkers. A very reasonable thing to mention. However, in failing to mention “the left wing media campaign to discredit fact checkers on the right”, you are clearly suggesting that you think that they don’t exist, or are so few that they are not worth mentioning. So, the conclusion that one must come to is that Mr. Dave Van Zandt fails to accept that at the very least there are as many left leaning sources of media as there are right leaning. Your rating of “Factual reporting” also suggests your bias. Nearly every right leaning source is rated lower on the chart than those that are left. Finally, even my liberal friends know that The New York Times is a severely left-leaning organization. For you to rate it as just left of center, once again reveals your own unwillingness to see the truth.
Thanks for this explanation of your methods. I’ve read some of that before, as I checked you out, too. I keep this site open anytime I’m online and use you often. Sometimes I search further. If so, it is usually Snopes or Politifact. Now I can add Factcheck to my list. So, Thanks, again!
While I get what you mean, there IS a problem when the right wing commenters tell you that these “fact checkers” are biased and they can’t name a more accurate fact checker. That means our current “fact checkers” aren’t doing a proper job. It means they have huge problems with sources – almost all these fact checkers use left wing to center-left sources to “debunk” right wing claims. The reason why right wingers can’t name a better media fact checker is because for the common layman who is a centrist to the center-right, there is none.
I actually like what you do – you guys are fairly accurate but I have to vehemently disagree with you on the usage of “fact checking” organizations. I don’t expect the same kind of scrutiny to be used against left wing issues. If I see Snopes debunking and fact checking every thing that comes out of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s mouth for the next four years, I might change my mind, but considering the disproportional attempts at “debunking” right-wing issues vs. left wingers and/or using weasel words or lies by omission to make the left wing causes in their fact checks to look bad, I have my doubts.
However, for your transparency and your civility towards your right wing readers, this has motivated me to donate towards your organization because this kind of thing is why I source your cite to try to convince people to stop reading news that’s biased to only one side. Thank you for what you do and for providing a beacon of light when it comes to journalism in a sea of extremely biased media.
Snopes is extremely biased. The other major fact checkers aren’t good either. None of them are reliable.
I like this website, but it is slightly biased to the left.
Reuters and AP used to be considered highly unbiased – that is no longer the case. They have a left wing bias now.
Washington Post is not lean left. Maybe in the past. Not anymore. They are left.
Look at Forbes’ chief content officer. They publish all kinds of left-leaning articles now. In the past, they were right. Not anymore.
There are many others on here who are incorrectly rated. This website is better than any other source. But it is still flawed. Its ratings are outdated and incorrect on many outlets.
@FE don’t misattribute classical-liberalism which is the intellectual liberalism with modern day liberalism
this article is based on flawed methodologies and conjecture combined with strange calculations to prove that Snopes, which if you read objectively is biased, as being least biased.
Snopes is known for misrepresenting questions or strawmanning the questions in order to get a more favorable rating in terms of True/False etc.
Many people in comments appear to be quite partisan and oppose any type of criticism that people may bring to Snopes, even if they are rightfully claimed, some even are trying to catch others by falsely using fallacies to prove that a person is a wrong. Which in itself is a fallacy, but I digress
I always check out sites with you first, Snopes to ask questions.
Sometimes it seems like Snopes tries harder to “defend” left leaning causes by using “missing context”. Also, it called the Biden “Crack Pipe” story “Mostly False”, when it was 100% true. They got a ton of grief for it, and eventually “corrected” their analysis to “Outdated”.
This article hasn’t aged well. I generally agree with most of your ratings. This one ain’t it.
Yes, this article has not changed well at all. Of course, when you are more concerned about a former disgraced president’s comments more than a current president who has claimed multiple times that his son has died in Iraq, what do you expect? I love how you guys claim to be non-biased.
Mike Webb (2/10/23), please read and understand:
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-burn-pits-veterans-beau-lost-his-life-iraq-2022-10?op=1
When you have a president who lies constantly and creates a fictional narrative that enslaves half of the population, including all of the media on that side of the political spectrum, all fact-checkers are going to look left-leaning simply because they are not drawn into the nonsense, Knowing now that Fox News lied about everything perhaps you should reevaluate the fact-checkers.
@sunny place: I agree with every piece of your comment quite cordially..
…No, I genuinely do.
But given the general-treatment meted out to a particular news-organisation in a not-related matter, with FOX having no compunction whatsoever the mainstream-herd in passionately attacking them — the only thing going for your comment is “the [majority-in/plurality-of ]numbers dictate the merit” simplistic-doctrine.
Least bias? then explain how this Snopes editor (who’s an ex-Al Jazeera worker), got to the conclusion that Israel bombed the Al-Ahli hospital please.
Her article is extremely biased. She posted none of the footage showing the Islamic Jihad rocket falling on the hospital, said on the 2nd paragraph that “many people blamed Israel blah blah”, while not talking about the fact that many people blamed the Islamic Jihad, according to the footage and evidence.
She didn’t talk about the damage, crater, nothing… She only mentioned some tweet by some random woman on Twitter, and a few paragraphs later, wrote “Even before the airstrike that killed hundreds of people” – AS IF WE’VE CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS AN ISRAELI AIRSTRIKED THE HOSPITAL ALREADY AND NOT A FAILED ISLAMIC JIHAD ROCKET.
Completely disgusting blood libel. Btw, if you’re out of the loop, it’s been confirmed by pretty much everyone (except very few pro-Hamas sources), that Israel did not bomb it.
Btw, she also managed to throw in a bunch of irrelevant condemnations against Israel that have nothing to do with the event, but of course none of the Israeli responses or arguments.
Oh well, what did you expect from an Al-Jazeera reporter? (an organization that sits in the same building of Hamas in Qatar lmao)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion
This is just one example out of many of snopes’ biases.
Trash website.
The latest comment by “@Anonymous”, which is more a rant about some other maverick news-outlet than this one..
Is laughably ludicrous.
Slurs aside.. It’s very true that some “news” publishers in the Washington D tend to have their operations located in the very same building as Herzlstani lobbyists/pressure-groups, but to come-up with fantasy about that.. Just like the oh-so-fReE press’ newsgathering-practices out of most of Africa & West Asia except for Herzlstan, it’s certainly the classic case of..: “Every single allegation being a confession”.
Is it any wonder, that none of the quotes here are not validated properly? Nevermind their own vivid inference when weasel-words like “worker” are invoked to set-the-tone.
You don’t need to use fake quotes in order to be biased genius.
If you wanna be biased, It’s enough to represent the arguments of one side in 90% of the article, while presenting half of an argument from the other side, in the other 10% of the article (and 0 of the evidence it provided).
Also, you did not explain to me how it makes sense that this reporter concluded that Israel committed the airstrike
“Even before the airstrike that killed hundreds of people” (Airstrikes = Israel, whereas Rocket launches = Islamic Jihad/Hamas)
And if you actually wanna tell me that summarizing an article by saying “Like everyone says Israel did it lol, end of story” isn’t bias, then you’re clearly biased yourself. This is far from balanced reporting.
Are you the very same “@Anonymous” as the one above?
If so: I clearly said you didn’t cite the article, which you still haven’t. So I stand by that.
And last time I checked.. It’s not Snopes®’ job to do original-reporting, it’s simply do the ‘Wikipedia’.. As in, parrot whatever their determined reputable-sources, and based on subject-matter, it doesn’t always have to be “news” one, say.
Regardless.. I wasn’t aiming to defend or oppose Snopes®, so I don’t care about that central conceit.( As an aside, I’ve been commenting under here for years-&-years, under a different display-name. And then stopped..)
I simply said you backed yourselves into the corner when you decided that wading into this controversial topic-area with your own all-too-convenient-biases shared by many culture-supremacist Mericans is not how you’re gonna “debunk” that they’re unjustly biased. As evident by the fact that most of your original-comment is not focused on the source itself, but attacking other abstracts.