Can Snopes be trusted?

Can Snopes be trusted?

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/
snopes.com/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/
snopes.com/photos/signs/headstone.asp
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

On the facts, yes. You have to read all the details for political stuff when it comes to vague stuff, like if a politician is lying.

no. whenever the truth doesn't fit their agenda they just deem it mostly true or mixed
it's socialist propaganda

no they it run by two fact Canadian Jews in their 60s

its 100% now based on correcting the record

fat*

snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
>An image showing two editions of The Wall Street Journal with opposing headlines on the front page is real, but the wording wasn't part of an effort to sway voters.

Really makes you think

>snopes
>socialist

LOL no
1/2

Well 3

yeah I wouldn't go there mate, throw that shit away

Yeah. Trump came of conciliatory when meeting with the president of Mexico but amped the wall talk back up at a rally hours later.

If you read the article you would see why the chain email is wrong.

Fuck no

Of course not, idiot.

sNOPEs

No fucking way.

Snopes would be more accurate if every single fact check were mirrored

Gee, I wonder why a bunch of fake news shills would tell you to ignore a sight dedicated to dispelling rumor and hoaxes.

If you need a place to reassure yourself that your walls are still padded, yeah pretty safe.

It's still lazy and disingenuous as fuck. Nothing about the wall was confirmed or denied that day. And I don't buy the idea that these papers were published in the same markets, otherwise this would have gotten way more attention. Plus, how the fuck would Snopes know what the Wall Street Journal's intentions were?

no.

>also
NEVER

Tag line is literally "rumor has it". Fake news.

They contacted the vice president of communications, Colleen Schwartz. Snopes does leg work as opposed to pizzagate tier research.

>sight

...

Yes, that is what they cover. Originally urban legends and rumors but the site has done well.

lel no

I'm sure an employee of the WSJ would never lie about the WSJ's intentions and that it's okay to publish her words as fact.

Yes.

They are CTR shills

no, both of these are 2nd hand quotes and one is true the other unproven based entirely on how the author felt.

snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/

snopes.com/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/

Definitely not. They are marxist Jews and lie as badly as CNN.

Correcting your record: they're confirmed paid CTR shills

Snope seems to honestly try, it is biased but they have not given up on trying to reveal the truth. Compared to politifact, which just blatantly lies to spread their agenda.

the biggest thing with Snopes is that it is important to read the summery, at least. They will label things that they wish were false as "MIXTURE" while stating in the summery that it is 100% true.

Snopes is based, miles better than politifact or factcheck.org, and is still the gold standard in fact-checking. If you disagree, why don't you post some of their conclusions you think are incorrect?

It also lines up with the facts regarding editions and the unfolding events of the day. The fact it doesn't coddle your paranoid conspiracies doesn't effect their integrity.

You can hurl petty insults all you want. The truth is that their conclusion statement is not based in fact and is an extrapolation on their part.

People don't like snopes because they want to believe the lies not because it's a bad site.

Extrapolation of reality. That is called an observation. You fake news shills get really epistemological when reality doesn't conform to your world view.

snopes can best be described as a metastatic iteration of the pedo-brockian school of bullshit.

>information is not in line with the party line
>therefore false

its frankly fucking embarrassing that even warrant discussion, aside from being a bullshit barometer.

Why are you calling the staff pedophiles?

Also they have several rumors on Trump they dispell that do not benefit any anti Trump narrative.

>It's still lazy and disingenuous as fuck. Nothing about the wall was confirmed or denied that day.

That's on the wall street journal, not snopes

>And I don't buy the idea that these papers were published in the same markets, otherwise this would have gotten way more attention.

So you don't believe their facts because you think X would happen and it didn't?

>Plus, how the fuck would Snopes know what the Wall Street Journal's intentions were?

Did you read the article? The submissive headline was printed earlier in the day, and the aggressive headline was printed later in the day. In order for this to sway voters, trump voters would have to read the early editions and hillary supporters would have to read the later editions. That plan makes no sense. And there's no additional evidence that these newspapers went to different audiences in any way. Oh my god. It's almost like a clickbait chain email lied.

It's joke now.

My favorite one is where the rape of a 5 year old in Idaho was false, because the refugees were from Iraq and Eritrea rather than Syria.

So it's false.

kek

>mfw I realize Johnson was playing both the racists and the niggers

Absolutely not. They have no scholars behind them. They have zero authority on anything.

Yep, that is the take away. He used both sides to do what he thought was right.

Only on things that have no political connections

Their pizzagate article is literally "there's no way to prove it therefore it's false" when if they truly wanted to be accurate they would have an "unverifiable" label

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((snopes)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

This. Their O'Keefe article is a pretty good example of this - they label him a huckster but don't really explain their reasoning beyond their initial claim that he distorts info (i.e. they provide no examples of him doing so, they just say he does it as if it is as self apparent as the sky being blue)

>to do what he thought was right.
Get shekels and votes?

Damn, Democrat to the core as fuck.

Most of the time you need more than emails of people talking about food to implicate a person of human trafficking.

Advocate civil rights for oppressed minorities

No.

>nigh probability of 1 that Tony & John Podesta are pedophiles, ignoring all other circumstantial evidence
>be snopes
>copy-paste-publish media matters & nyt write up
>proceed to fact check and assert null veracity of ongoing pedophilia
>do no investigation
>ignore the hideous pedophilic art of Tony Podesta
>ignore known friendship with pedophile Hastert

Whether pizzagate is real or just hipster scumbag bullshit is the first, legitimate layer of inquiry an honest journo would ask. However, Tony Podesta is beyond the pale and should be investigated, at the very minimum.

Snopes is part of the wave of faux-journalists that claim a divine right on truth. The people who read and believe snopes may be simple (read:braindead) enough to take their word at face value, however a large segment of population appreciate ACTUAL journalism, and are acutely aware of its absence.

When you run cover ops for an obvious pedophile like Tony Podesta, NARY A FUCKING WORD about the actual accusations, don't be surprised when people start to suspect that you too are indeed pedos.

As such, snopes is fucking dirt. Scum of the earth and the perfect encapsulation of the cancer affection journalism and the culture at large.

Yea, get votes, I said that already.

so the jews called the other jew and got exactly the answer they wanted

no

No, and it never could. Just some hippy couple who googles shit and puts out their own opinions.

It's remarkable that Podesta said "this is the attorney who kept me out of jail", not "this is the attorney who proved I was innocent".

Start with a cherry picked "statement" to fact check, pick it apart on a flaw, and ignore the real issues/facts.
Turn the handle and out comes a conclusion that supports the Liberal narrative.

They got the plot number of a funny tombstone. They do a lot of legwork.
snopes.com/photos/signs/headstone.asp