"Fact Checking" websites
Snopes, Politico, Politifact, Fact Check
I've seen many times on this board proof posts showing evidence of bias, conflicts of interest among the people running them, corruption in their core.
Does anyone have any infographics or verified info which discredits these? I've seen it around here if anyone can help.
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
foodbabe.com
dailycaller.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
technologyreview.com
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
twitter.com
Any help?
>give proof that snopes is lying to you
>normies read it and check snopes to find out of it's true
>snopes has a page about it
>says FALSE in big red letters
>"nice try alt-right but you're not fooling me"
>takes a sip of chamomile tea mixed with cum
If someone references one of these sites you can just say "fake news" until they submit to you. It's the new way of doing business. I can't be expected to debate with every low info leftist that is debating in bad faith anyway
If Snopes says something is false its 99.9% likely its true.
Snopes in run by a cuck and ugly fat pig and an obese cat
...
kek
Snopes’ founders divorced after the husband, (((David Mikkelson))), used company money to hire prostitutes and cheat on his wife, (((Barbara))).
dailymail.co.uk
Thanks, that's pretty good for a start. Any more?
Snopes? Are you still living in 2004?
foodbabe.com
dailycaller.com
There’s plenty. Jews can’t help but get caught in lies and partisan politics, so just Google for it.
checked and saved. thank you
This desu
I don’t believe for an instant they were ever truly conservative. If either one is a registered republican then it’s ONLY so people can point to them and say “but they’re republicans so you can be sure they are telling the truth. If anything they would be biased FOR you!”
What’s up with this? Is it a lie? Is that him?
What these "fact checking" sites do is they tighten or loosen what constitutes truth or falsehood depending on who they're judging.
They'll accept slight deviations from the truth from politicians on the left, and they will not worry about them leaving relevant facts out. But when it comes to right-wing politicians they'll not only say "false" if those politicians go 1-2% off the mark with a spontaneous verbal estimation, but they'll downgrade "truth" to "half truth" because "the politicians failed to mention these vaguely related facts that we think they should have mentioned".
During the election, I remember calling them out on one or two very specific issues where what Trump said was 100% true by itself, but they rated it as a half-truth because he didn't mention the Democrats' likely retort.
Eats yoga mats
Now there is a trusted source
Delight, simply delight
>have commie coworker. ironic right
>argue politics with him
>'pffft snopes eben sayed drumpfs done'
>go find a snopes article that proves hillary cant replace trump
>'f-fake news! this was written by alt-right!'
>author of the article is the founder of snopes
Believe it or not a lot of snarky liberals love to reference snopes. If OP is “living in 2004” it’s only because the liberal retards he’s forced to endure all are.
We have the same thing in my country. The "fact" check is owned by the main stream newspapers and run by 19 year old feminists.
...
...
> sperm head
Snopes is owned by George Soros
Politifact is owned by the Miami Herald, which is one of the most liberal newspapers in the US
>'f-fake news! this was written by alt-right!'
>>author of the article is the founder of snopes
Founder of snopes unmasked as alt-right scumbag.
I'd rather flip a coin than listen to snopes because you know their position on anything before you even go there
...
...
yes brother, I see you're enjoying your physicality
>pay $10 to Godaddy for a domain "TheMostRealestFactCheckingSite.com"
>pay Hostgator $2 for hosting
congratulations you are now officially a fact checking website
Fucking this!
you should stop referring to leftists as "liberals" when they're the furthest things from it
as a general rule, you should disbelieve any website that slaps a definitive "true" or "false" label on an open-ended conspiracy theory where new information comes to light every day/week/month
This in every level
Saved :^)
"They're socialists, how can you expect them to be honest about their political enemies?"
Sorted.
...
...
...
disinfo
Snopes is such bullshit.
>Number is correct
Snopes said Antifa has nothing to do with Marxism even though at every gathering of Antifa there's a Marxist flag or sign.
all their sources are cited so go find out for yourself
>Snopes is a trustworthy source!
>t. Snopes
Based comrade
...
there are no facts, only opinions
snopes makes a lot of money changing their opinion. one day they say x is bad for you, then the get a check in the mail, and suddenly it's good for you.
can't blame a merchant, for making a living
finwin
>there are no facts, only opinions
spoken like a true liberal
>Point out sperm on Obama's head in potrait
>Co-worker thinks it's bullshit
>Point out the artist's past works filled with sperm, both obvious and hidden
>Co-worker looks up on Snopes
>Says FALSE
>Snopes cites the fact that Sup Forums pointed it out is proof it's false somehow
>.........
Agreed. It's also better because "Liberal" and "Progressive" have positive connotations. Leftists don't like being called leftists.
hey now. your mom begged me to put it in her ass. it's not my fault you came out retarded.
?
...
...
Politifact is heavily biased all the time. The same thing will get marked differently depending on which side says it. Snopes used to be trustworthy back when it was doing actual urban legends/myths, not sure when it changed, probably just more clicks if they tow the line. All three are heavily biased and you can look at the about/mission/(((staff))) to see why.
...
AfricaCheck (our version) is funded by Soros and the main person running it is some hipster girl who lives in (((woodstock))).
They crowdsourced some bills. Probably not great if you are so cash poor you have to pandhandle. Leaves you open to bribery.
Also Politico stopped being legit in 2014.
(((Snopes)))
AHHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
it is easy, apply the litmus test:
anyone or any website denying controlled demolition on 9/11 is either too ignorant to be taken seriously or part of the zionist deception.
In reverse, bonus points if your source blames 9/11 on israel
> Liberals are mentally stuck in the 2000s
This makes too much sense.
>[[[proof of bias]]]
jesus christ
>Daily Fail
I basically had this discussion verbatim with one of my zogwashed friends, fucking infuriating.
Really smugly was like "what do you think snopes is liberal or something?" Like he literally thinks i'm the brainwashed one when its observable that the (((fact))) checking websites have a clear agenda, its just one that he agrees with and these sites are seen as the voice of reason to normies.
Seriously though, it was during the election and I was trying to show him a video explaining connections between hillary huma abedin and different muslim organizations. He looked it up, saw the first result was snopes """""""""debunking""""""""""" it, refused to watch it. Like seriously refused, said it was debunked and that was all there was to it. I mean if you so strongly believe that why would you refuse to watch it?
>(((Daily Caller)))
>google a controversy for our side
>its okay its fake news
>google a controversy for people with different political beliefs
>we just checked and its not super fake news drumpf is a russian agent and he's slightly lying when he says he is working for the kremlin
snopes
The Las Vegas staged shooting, for example
(((fact checking)))
youtu.be
Don't you get it? Sup Forums is a fact check website for fact checking websites.
...
>Does anyone have any infographics or verified info which discredits these?
Other than that many of them have been purchased by Democratic activist organizations like MoveOn, their partners and subsidiaries?
Have you ever heard of appeal to authority? What even makes these people the authority on what is and isn't true in the first place? My first instinct is always to assume the opposite of whatever a "fact checking" website says. Obviously they're not always lying but it's because of this that I think this way first: why do they have to try to convince people of the truth of something by certifying it like that? Because it isn't actually true and they're hoping you'll just take their word for it?
Anything that needs a website like Snopes to back it up is probably either an outright lie or an intentional misrepresentation of facts. People have eyes and ears of their own. There is no legitimate need to appeal to some supposed authority on truth, ever.
>number is correct
>but false because feelings
>numbers are valid
>it's false because you can't compare the two
??????????????????
What proof?
But this doesn't make anything on the site wrong. It makes him a bad husband
When you find the first human animal Chimera in the lab.
Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)
'Fact-checking' website Snopes is asking its users for help in a GoFundMe saying an 'outside vendor' is 'holding it hostage'
But the site which claims to be 'transparent' and to tell people the facts they need to know hasn't told those donating everything that is going on
In fact it is at the center of a bitter legal battle with its CEO being accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses
David Mikkelson set up company which owns Snopes.com in 2003 with then wife Barbara but she sold her 50 per cent stake during bitter divorce
Owners of company which provided it with tech and advertising services bought her stake but have now fallen out with Mikkelson and call him a fraudster
Case could see judge order site closed - despite it being chosen by Facebook to arbitrate on fake news
By Alana Goodman For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 16:13 EST, 26 July 2017 | UPDATED: 17:47 EST, 26 July 2017
Read more: dailymail.co.uk
But that doesn't make the site wrong.
Not spermed. Take that drumpflets