The flaw in using the "do your own research" call in an argument without providing a starting point.

Henkka

Banned
Banned
Is the revamp objective?
Maybe, maybe not, I'd have to do a deep dive into the topic... But that's besides the point. They rated it "Outdated" because the policy was changed. But before that, they put out a comical "fact check" which basically agreed the claim was true, but somehow also false because it's not important. The fact that they did that at all already proves there is a bias at Snopes.
 

Rory

Closed Account
I've seen Snopes be wrong and then later correct the error. I think that's okay (ie, normal, human, understandable).

I think if we're to judge them it should be on the latest iteration of an article (as you say, they're often equivalent to an individual's blog post and an early, pre-peer reviewed version may be less than perfect).

Should also be easy to post at least a few examples of non-objectivity if the claim has some truth to it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think if we're to judge them it should be on the latest iteration of an article
except isnt snopes one of the "fact checkers" for (i think) Facebook, used to censor or remove comments or accounts? so they should try harder to get it right the first time.

You may have done - Ann wrote it here two months ago:
lol. oh that's so funny. i googled it because i wondered why you would only search it on MB...it was Racheal Maddow who said it!

Rachel Maddow Tells Stephen Colbert: Facts Had a Liberal ...
Content from External Source


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com › tv-news › rachel-...

Nov 9, 2012 — And, she said, in this election, “facts have a liberal bias,” which is a nice twist on Colbert's famous line: “reality has a well-known ...
Content from External Source
i swear on my eyesight that i didnt know Maddow said that when i compared Maddow to Tucker. but i am genuinely amused with the synchronicity. :) hee hee.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member

I don't see the two cases as equivalent. The claim isn't necessarily that he was behind the collapse of WTC7, the claim is that he was admitting it in that interview.

I imagine most people can see it's a silly claim - why would he admit that in an interview? why would he say "pull it" when he meant "demolish it"? - so it seems fine that the person who said the words is used as the source for what they actually meant.

I do think the words are a little vague, since I would use "them" in that sentence rather than "it" (ie, the crew), but I guess it all depends on what was said to him in the preceding sentence, or even how he habitually refers to groups (when England win at football, for example, I say "they won", whereas Americans tend to say "it won").

Anyway, a lack of objectivity I don't see. More depth possible? Sure. And that's what a site like metabunk is for. :)
This is not a 9/11 thread.
 

Rory

Closed Account
This is not a 9/11 thread.

That's true. But wasn't the thrust of the two deleted posts about Snopes' objectivity (or lack of) rather than 9/11?

Henkka: Here's an example, as requested, of an occasion I feel Snopes weren't objective.

Rory: Here's why I feel that's not an example of Snopes not being objective.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That's true. But wasn't the thrust of the two deleted posts about Snopes' objectivity (or lack of) rather than 9/11?

Hennka: Here's an example, as requested, of an occasion I feel Snopes weren't objective.

Rory: Here's why I feel that's not an example of Snopes not being objective.
This topic is ripe for thread drift. I felt it drifted.
 

Rory

Closed Account
Fair point. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd started a 'claim' thread when first asking Henkka for evidence of fact checkers not being objective.
 
Top