Snopes Beclowns Itself

And if you google Mister Ed was a zebra you find a pretty convincing (there are a few clues) article at Snopes telling you that yes, he was. You don't see a problem with that? Snopes is not supposed to be the Onion or the Babylon Bee.
Snopes is whatever its owners want it to be.

You seem to have had a moment of " lack of sense of humour" consider even the most ancient and distinguished newspapers have included light hearted pieces over the years, indeed some of them even carry (meant to be) funny cartoons.
 
And if you google Mister Ed was a zebra you find a pretty convincing (there are a few clues) article at Snopes telling you that yes, he was. You don't see a problem with that? Snopes is not supposed to be the Onion or the Babylon Bee.


I think you are trying way too hard in your campaign to discredit Snopes.

"A few clues"? Gimme a break. Someone would have to make a conscious effort to miss those "few clues".

ISF has a "Humor" subforum. Do you rail against that? Or "community" which is mostly humor.

How could they possibly have any place on a skeptics board?
 
That's not a credible argument. You cannot say what this family, whom you don't know and have no connection with, "would have done" based on something a completely different, wholly unconnected family facing an entirely different situation has done.

So where does the information about the supposed $1,200 payment come from? Where does any of the "detail" of the claim come from?
 
And if you google Mister Ed was a zebra you find a pretty convincing (there are a few clues) article at Snopes telling you that yes, he was. You don't see a problem with that? Snopes is not supposed to be the Onion or the Babylon Bee.

The core feature, and pretty hard to miss on the page, is Snopes rating.

Do you actually believe that there is a real risk of misinformation here (Beyond the general risk that comes from satire existing and some people being stupid)?
 
And if you google Mister Ed was a zebra you find a pretty convincing (there are a few clues) article at Snopes telling you that yes, he was. You don't see a problem with that? Snopes is not supposed to be the Onion or the Babylon Bee.

You seem to have missed the fact that the Lost Legends section is specifically designed to impart the message "Don't believe everything you read, no matter the source."

In fact they state....

This section graphically demonstrates the pitfalls of falling into the lazy habit of taking as gospel any one information outlet’s unsupported word. We could have put up a page saying “Don’t believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source,” but that wouldn’t have conveyed the message half as well as showing through direct example just how easy it is to fall into the “I got it from so-and-so, therefore it must be true” mindset. That’s the same mindset that powers urban legends, the same basic mistake that impels countless well-meaning folks to confidently assert “True story; my aunt (husband, best friend, co-worker, boss, teacher, minister) told me so.”

No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they’re just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.
 
This whole thread confuses me. If you look at the the About page, you can get a full explanation of what ratings they give to stories and why.

Specifically, the "Unproven" rating says this:

This rating indicates that insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. This rating typically involves claims for which there is little or no affirmative evidence, but for which declaring them to be false would require the difficult (if not impossible) task of our being able to prove a negative or accurately discern someone else’s thoughts and motivations.
How is this in any way unclear?
 
With the caveat that I've never heard of the following website and can't really vouch for it, here's some more information about the evolution of fact checking:
The 5 best unbiased fact checking sites for finding the truth

Oddly IMO it lists Google search results as a "site" that can be mined for truth, which is sort of true but seems to ignore the fact (if it's a fact) that search results can vary based on someone's surfing habits. People are given credit for being able to learn how to use search results critically and tell which sites are unbiased, if there is such a thing.

It seems to me that some people think dismiss fact-checking sites as unnecessary, irrelevant or biased, but do people really think facts don't matter? Facts, alternative facts, who cares as long as it makes me feel good? My own confirmation bias probably makes me apply this more to conservatives than liberals, but I'd really like to see the same rigor applied to the claims of all people running for office.

That article has been updated:
The 8 Best Fact-Checking Sites for Finding Unbiased Truth

And it no longer lists Google as a "Site" although you can certainly use google searches (or other search engines) to find out facts for yourself.

By the way, I thought this page on Snopes was worth a read too:
Why We Include Humor and Satire in Snopes.com

We do not pick and choose which items to address at Snopes.com based on personal preference or political leanings or our own viewpoint of what’s “important.” We address whatever the largest segment of the audience is asking about or questioning at any given time, as derived from a variety of inputs (e.g., emails, site searches, web trends). We don’t make any judgments about whether what the audience is questioning is important or obvious or frivolous — if people are asking us about something, there’s a reason why, and our job is to take whatever they’re questioning and help them sort out what’s true about it and what isn’t.

Items that originated as humor or satire often breach our topic-selection threshold, even articles that are seemingly so ridiculous in concept and/or so thoroughly labeled as being humorous or satiric that nobody could possibly mistake them for something else. We’ve had to reassure our readers that 1990s-era Beanie Babies toys were not stuffed with brown recluse spider eggs that began hatching 20 years later, that a dog pictured with a slice of ham on its face was not badly burned and in need of medical treatment, and that SeaWorld would not be drowning a live elephant as part of a new attraction.

These examples, as absurd as they may seem on the surface, are not outliers or aberrations — they are some of the most massively viral “Is this true?” subjects we’ve ever undertaken. They put the lie to common refrains about “obvious humor,” “obvious satire,” “obvious jokes,” or “obvious” anything else. Quite evidently nothing can be put online — no matter how preposterous in concept or plainly labeled it might be — that some people won’t believe to be true (or at least allow might be true). And since everything put online has the potential to reach billions of people, even if only a very small percentage of the global audience misunderstands it, that percentage may still represent a very large number of people.

The article also goes on to discuss possible reasons why some people might be confused by some forms of satire or may encounter it in contexts where it isn't presented as satire, or whatever the case may be.
 
I've always found Snopes' commentary (as distinct from their fact-checking) to be quite sober and sensible. Mikkelson has a style of writing that makes issues clear and easy to follow.
 
Here's another classic example of Snopes' "bend over backwards to find a way to say the Republicans were wrong."

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris is descended from the 19th-century slave owner Hamilton Brown.

Snopes calls this one "unproven" but listen to this:

In June and July 2019, social media users shared reports that claimed one of the ancestors of 2020 presidential Democratic primary candidate and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) was a slave owner on the Caribbean island of Jamaica.

Such claims were shared widely in the aftermath of the first round of Democratic primary debates, during which Harris brought racial issues to the fore by criticizing primary rival and former Vice President Joe Biden’s legislative record on busing, which she called “hurtful” to her as a black woman.

The focus on racial issues and Harris’ racial identity intensified after Donald Trump, Jr., son of President Donald Trump, briefly shared a tweet that averred: “Kamala Harris is *not* an American Black. She is half Indian and half Jamaican.” The source of that tweet, the @ali account, has consistently promulgated the claim that Harris is descended from “Jamaican Slave Owners.”

They go on to note how many conservative blogs ran with the story. And see how many times they use the words, "claim" "claimed", and "claims"? Guess where these right-wingers came up with the "claim"?

From Kamala's own father:

All of them were based on an account written by Donald Harris, a retired Stanford University economics professor and the father of Sen. Harris.

And you can probably guess their reason for calling the "claim" unproven:

However, we have been unable to verify that a line of descent exists between the modern-day Harris family and the 19th-century slave owner. As such, the claim that an ancestor of Sen. Harris owned slaves in Jamaica remains unproven. If evidence emerges that verifies that line of descent, we will update this fact check accordingly.

Who knows? Maybe her dad was just bragging?
 
Last edited:
But, it is unproven.

I mean, it's been explained to you how this works.

Did you not read the thread?
 
Here's another classic example of Snopes' "bend over backwards to find a way to say the Republicans were wrong."

It looks more like a classic example of cherry-picking a few small excerpts from a long and very carefully researched article and pretending they disprove the conclusion of that article, despite the fact that even the few excerpts quoted make the reasoning perfectly clear. Snopes isn't the clown here.

Dave
 
"Another example"? The first wasn't an example of that. Seems this isn't either.
 
I used to follow Snopes, the message board was my home for over a decade. There was always people saying it was either too left or too right, but for the most part they did their best to stay in the middle.

Then stuff happened. People were added to help write articles and more stuff happened and it went downhill. I can't say if it's unbias now, as I haven't been for years.



If you are looking for an alternative, Truth or Fiction is where I go.
 
Who knows? Maybe her dad was just bragging?

Like Elizabeth Warren was bragging? Conservatives had no problem going after her ancestral claim - even after it was proven to be correct.

Her father claims a certain ancestry. He can't prove it. It is unproven.

I can't really understand your criticism at all. I mean, this is the definition of unproven. He has a claim with no evidence to support it.

Can you prove it?

I used to follow Snopes, the message board was my home for over a decade.

Me too, I think there are a lot of old Snopsters here. It was fun when it was just chronicling Urban Legends and Glurge and such.
 
Last edited:
Notably a significant number of black people living in the Western Hemisphere are descended from slave owners. Due to rape...
 
Notably a significant number of black people living in the Western Hemisphere are descended from slave owners. Due to rape...

Yes, that's a deeper issue with all this. Conservatives are trying to suggest that Harris is somehow not descended from genuine slaves because her great-to-the-however-many grandmother was forcibly impregnated by a man who held her as a chattel. That's a prima facie self-refuting claim.

Dave
 
Here's another classic example of Snopes' "bend over backwards to find a way to say the Republicans were wrong."



Snopes calls this one "unproven" but listen to this:



They go on to note how many conservative blogs ran with the story. And see how many times they use the words, "claim" "claimed", and "claims"? Guess where these right-wingers came up with the "claim"?

From Kamala's own father:



And you can probably guess their reason for calling the "claim" unproven:



Who knows? Maybe her dad was just bragging?

They start off the article by saying why they are investigating the issue, namely its in the news because her political opponents are claiming she is descended from a slave owner. Literally the very next section points out where that claim comes from, her father.

They then go on to say, their genealogy research cannot definitely show a link. Just because her dad said something in an article doesn't make it true. My dad says his grandmother swore she was 1 quarter Cherokee.... genealogy research did not confirm that. Was she mistaken, a liar, or did someone falsify records? Who knows.
 

Back
Top Bottom