Snopes, Mother Shamed for Placing Baby on Airport Floor

Expository essays in literature, politics, philosophy, and science bug allow space for affirming ane's stance on issues, old and new.

Snopes Logo

Snopes

Facts Do Not Stand up Alone

How does the fact-checking site, snopes.com, stack upwards as a reliable source? The brusk reply is, not very well, specially for political issues. Considering the site now features thousands of articles, readers might see some manufactures that ring true equally professional person, well-counterbalanced, and unbiased. Nonetheless, other pieces on the site may not alive upwardly to any standard of neutrality. How tin readers know that a fact-checking site can be trusted? Ultimately, the respond must suggest that readers keep an open up mind and verify; don't take for gospel what the snopes folks say without due diligence, especially if an article seems to entreatment to your own political bias.

Even though facts should prevail in whatsoever argument, facts do not stand up lonely; they are always accompanied by analysis, estimation, explanation, elucidation, clarification, and indicate of view. That is why fact-checking is a vital role of understanding and using discourse. Thus, fact-checking the fact-checker will always remain a significant role of the public trust.

If you don't read the paper, y'all're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you lot're mis-informed."

— Marking Twain

David and Barbara Mikkelson

Snopes in the First

The name "Snopes" comes from a series of novels and brusque stories penned by William Faulkner, featuring the Snopes family, recurring characters in Faulkner's works. David Mikkelson'due south analogousness for folklore and urban legends inspired the founding of the company.

The Snopes site, controlled by the company called "Bardav" named for the co-founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson, began every bit an urban legend, myth-busting site, circa 1994; however, the current lawsuit involving David Mikkelson reports the founding appointment at 2004. The site was essentially a mom-&-pop business run by the couple, out of their minor California home in Agoura Hills. The site performed a useful service in debunking inaccurate claims that have been spewed all over the Internet.

Examples of the Mikkelsons' helpful corrections include the inaccuracy virtually poisoned onions, the skinny on pop cans, and the Southwest airline ticket giveaway. In this area, the site excels, correcting the phony information that gets spread through Twitter and Facebook and other social media outlets, even email.

Snopes in Jeopardy

After the Mikkelsons divorced in 2016, Barbara sold her stake in the visitor, Bardav, to Proper Media, a San Diego-based Net media company. Because of a California constabulary that prohibits companys from engaging in such acquisitions, Barbara had to sell her stake to individuals who were employed by Proper Media. David Mikkelson resented the fact that Barbara retained half ownership in the company that he always considered belonged but to him. Thus, David Mikkelson along with one of the individuals, Vincent Green, moved to wrest command from Proper Media.

Mikkelson did this allegedly in order to gain admission to the finances of the visitor. Proper Media is now suing David Mikkelson for inappropriate use of the company'due south financial resources. While Mikkelson has insisted that he used the money for business, Proper Media's lawsuit alleges that he has used the money for personal travel and to pay for his honeymoon with his new wife. And in further deportment against it, the company claims that Mikkelson has prevented the Proper Media firm from operating its business organization; thus, it is suffering financially.

Every bit of August 2017, Mikkelson was awarded half a million dollars to proceed his upkeep of Snopes, but the aforementioned judge that awarded him those funds, Approximate Judith Hayes of the San Diego Superior Court, also ruled that the lawsuit against Mikkelson for breach of contract could continue.

The Snopes team has created a GoFundMe page soliciting funds to save the site. And then far it has collected $697,791 out of a goal of $500,000. While this does sound like an astonishing feat, the comments post-obit the plea for greenbacks at the lesser of the page demonstrate that a number of folks continue to accuse the site of political bias.

Update: Evidently, the GoFundMe page has deleted the earlier comment section. Now information technology allows only comments from those who accept donated, meaning but those who side with Snopes' political bias are commenting, and of class, those comments are all sycophantically positive. The goal is now $2 million, of which they take collected $1,491,050.

Whether the Snopes site will remain a feasible fact-checking entity now depends upon the consequence of the lawsuit and the cumulative judgment of its users. Is the site significantly neutral plenty politically to remain a reliable source for fact-checking the political class? Merely fourth dimension volition tell in both instances.

Mikkelson and Elyssa Young

Snopes and Politics

When Snopes began focusing on political fact-checking, its reputation began to ebb and flow with accusations of political bias. David Mikkelson claims to take no political affiliation while his former wife Barbara, as a Canadian citizen, cannot vote in U.S. elections.

David Mikkelson has remarked: "You'd exist difficult-pressed to notice two more than apolitical people." He claims that he declined to state a political party on his current voter registration, but FactCheck.org states that in 2000, Mikkelson was registered every bit a Republican.

In a slice on the snopes site titled "Is snopes.com biased?," Mikkelson makes a weak endeavor to address the political bias issue simply offers nothing except a conglomeration of reader comments, manifestly selected to support his claim that snopes is accused of existence "biased in every possible direction." Obviously, that claim is meant to advise that because they cannot be "biased in every possible direction," they are biased in none. Of grade, that position is untenable and that is why he fails to honestly address it.

Mikkelson'due south new wife, Elyssa Immature, does have a background in politics, as she ran for function in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004. Interestingly, David Mikkelson has admitted that the site is more often accused of liberal bias than conservative. Other than a political bias, does the site actually address bug that people actually need to know about?

The post-obit two Snopes manufactures reveal a somewhat troubling tendency in how the site addresses issues involving the political form. The beginning article focuses on a claim made about Ben Carson, the new HUD secretary; the second article addresses the Clintons' taking publicly owned items from the White House as they departed the administration in 2001. The divergence between the treatment of the manufactures is clear and troubling.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson

HUD The states Government

Article 1: Ben Carson

" Did Ben Carson Purchase a $31,000 Dining Gear up and Charge It to HUD? "

The claim: "HUD Secretary Ben Carson bought a $31,000 dining set and billed taxpayers for it." And Snopes labels that merits "true."

The article then gain to pile on references from the New York Times and the Guardian that offer further damning claims almost Carson. Just so comes the information that completely refutes the claims fabricated earlier in the commodity. Carson did not club the furniture, and he told CNN: "I did not request new article of furniture, merely asked if information technology could be remediated."

The Snopes article even provides part of Carson's response which puts the prevarication to the commodity'southward "truthful" merits:

"I was as surprised every bit anyone to find out that a $31,000 dining set up had been ordered," Carson said in the argument. "I have requested that the order exist canceled. We will find some other solution for the furniture replacement."

Then, why would an article that ends with information answering the question, "Did Ben Carson Buy a $31,000 Dining Ready and Charge It to HUD?," with a resounding "No," claim that the statement "HUD Secretary Ben Carson bought a $31,000 dining set and billed taxpayers for it," is "true"?

The end of the commodity refutes its get-go, simply anyone who merely casually glances over information technology would likely come up away thinking that Carson was, in fact, trying to bilk the taxpayers out of $31,000 for a dining prepare and likely would non have even bothered to note that it was not for Carson'due south personal abode use but for his part at HUD.

It seems likely that the Snopes writer, Bethania Palma, is cyberbanking on readers' minds being set up by the starting time claims along with denigration by the New York Times and Guardian, so that by the time the readers encounter Ben Carson's claims, those readers will just believe that it is Carson who is lying.

Lest readers still miss the point that this slice is intended to tarnish Ben Carson, Palma ends on this note: "Revelations of the luxurious buy came as Carson was advocating for budget cuts that would slash funding for the department," despite the fact that there was no purchase because Carson had canceled the order that someone else at HUD had initiated.

Bill and Hillary Clinton — Beak and Hillary Clinton

Victory Girls

Article ii: The Clintons

" Capitol Crime"

The claim: "The Clintons were forced to return an estimated $200,000 in furniture, china and art they 'stole' from the White Firm." This claim is labeled, "Mostly False."

Again, the article twists itself through some loops of artistic analysis to finally land on the merits, "All told, the Clintons paid back or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, artwork, red china and other household items they had kept upon leaving office." That number looks a lot closer to $200,000 than the characterization of "by and large false" would indicate.

Again, the 2d one-half of the article refutes its own beginning. But a little trick is yet coming with this remark,

To say the latter were 'stolen' is to say more than than we know — the removal of the questioned items could take been based a clerical mistake — but in any case an accurate bookkeeping of those items' worth puts information technology at only a quarter of what has been alleged: $50,000, not $200,000.

Wow, sounds familiar, rather similar James Comey's judgment that Hillary likely did not "intend" to break the police force and endanger the nation with her individual email server. Nosotros cannot know that the Clintons intended to "steal" annihilation, then the word "stole" is beyond our ken. And despite Clintonian intention, information technology is likely that only "a clerical error" caused those items to be removed. And fifty-fifty at that, the things that they took really only amounted to $50,000 not $200,000—thus that they took $200,000 worth of stuff is just a quarter true. Voila! The accusation can exist labeled, "mostly false"—despite the fact that earlier in the piece, it was reported that "the Clintons paid dorsum or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, etc."

The Clintons clearly took items from the White Business firm that did not belong to them, nevertheless their sycophants quibble nearly the bodily value of the things, non the fact that they took them. If taking things that practise not vest to you is non "stealing," and then we demand a new definition of the word.

Once more, anyone giving this commodity a casual look-through would come away with the notion that the Clintons did not actually take items that did non belong to them when they left the White Firm that winter day in 2001.

Bias? You determine.

One might decide that these two articles may not be typical, and one might detect examples that contrary the left over right bias. It would be a useful exercise for anyone who depends on Snopes to look for further examples and make comparisons. Facts are facts, but human beings are always capable of bending those facts or spinning them toward 1's own point of view. The people at Snopes are no less human being than the people they fact check.

The Babylon Bee Logo

Snopes and Satire

Satire is a literary form that often engages irony to make its point. Western political satire has been part of the literary catechism since the ancient Roman writers Horace and Juvenal plied their trade. Jonathan Swift's "A Pocket-sized Proposal" remains ane of the about widely anthologized and studied satires.

Satire is not "fake news"; information technology is not factually possible to deflate satire with a literal explanation. Debunking a piece of satire renders the debunker as functionally illiterate, appearing as well ignorant to empathise that a piece of satire does not function to relay information equally a news report would. Satire makes an evaluation virtually an event or person, just it commonly does then by stating the contrary of what the satirist believes or past making outrageous claims whose value lies in what they imply, not what they country.

Currently on the Web, many sites take been created to feature satirical articles exclusively. The Babylon Bee describes itself equally "Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire." But Snopes has plant information technology necessary to "debunk" many of the Bee's satirical articles. It features an annal of Babylon Bee articles, which is mislabeled as "Fake News."

Although the Snopes author usually includes the fact that the Babylon Beeis a satirical site, that writer and so creates a straw man so southward/he can burn it down. If a piece is satire, it's ludicrous to claim you are debunking it, unless y'all accost the actual point of view of the writer and not merely the claims made in the satiric piece.

A recent example of a straw homo congenital up by a Snopes writer is "Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Car to Spin News?" That Snopes question is addressing the Babylon Bee's title, which claims, "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Auto To Spin News Before Publication." Anyone over the historic period of five would immediately recognize this title every bit satire. Just the Snopes writer, who is none other than David Mikkelson himself, declares in the debunking article,

Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was but a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over declared news media "bias" and "fake news," some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted information technology literally.

Whatsoever reader who would interpret the "Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News" claim literally needs more aid in reading comprehension than Snopes can provide.

That straw man created by the site possessor would seem to imply the site has lost its style in more areas than just engaging in political bias; they seem now not to exist able to gauge what the generally educated public who peruse their site can and cannot empathise.

Other debunked satires tackled by the fact-checkers of Snopes include the Babylon Bee'south "Horrified Joel Osteen Learns About Crucifixion," "California Christians Must At present Register Bibles As Assault Weapons," and "Playing Christmas Music Before Thanksgiving Now A Federal Crime." The Snopes writer, David Emery, who penned this last article, mislabels the Babylon Bee "a politically-oriented fake news web site" even as he quotes the site's description equally, "Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire."

Knowledge comes, merely wisdom lingers. It may not exist difficult to store up in the mind a vast quantity of facts within a comparatively short time, but the power to form judgments requires the severe discipline of hard work and the tempering estrus of experience and maturity."

— Calvin Coolidge

Kalev Leetaru

Snopes and Reliability

In a contempo article, "The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers," appearing on Forbes, Kalev Leetaru attempts to determine that reliability. Leetaru begins by referencing the tabloid nature of an earlier article that appeared on Daily Post and saying that he expected David Mikkelson to refute the claims being fabricated in the Daily Mail article whose lengthy championship is "'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of plummet after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn't told its readers THOSE facts)."

Because no such refutation was forthcoming from Mikkelson, Leetaru engaged the Snopes founder himself through a series of emails. Leetaru was start stunned past the fact that the fact-checker began by hiding himself, his business practices, and even his hiring practices for the fact-checking Snopes site backside the secrecy of his divorce proceedings.

Leetaru continues to engage Mikkelson asking him almost how he determines who was capable of doing the kind of fact-checking that would be required of a fact-checking site. Mikkelson remained vague and elusive, indicating that the Snopes staff includes a variety of individual talents. Leetaru then attempts to glean from Mikkelson what the hiring process involves, but again Mikkelson remaines unresponsive, making it quite clear that he actually has no significant fix of standards by which to evaluate new hires.

While the Snopes site is likely to remain a mainstay in Internet fact-checking, some readers will continue to blindly accept fifty-fifty the virtually partisan manufactures as gospel. Hopefully, nearly readers volition look in more one place for answers to their fact-checking needs. Snopes is not the final word in accuracy, not by a long shot. As Kalev Leetaru shows, Snopes does not even take a reliable prepare of standards by which information technology checks its facts or by which it even hires those doing the checking.

Despite the site's About Snopes claims that the site "strives to be equally transparent every bit possible," the proof is in the articles, in the convoluting of the analyses, and in the choices fabricated for presentation, particularly the misguided focus on satire.

In the site's section featuring Frequently Asked Questions, the question appears along with its answer:

Q: How do I know the information you lot've presented is accurate?
A: Nosotros don't expect anyone to have us as the ultimate authority on whatsoever topic.

That'due south skillful advice.

Examples of Snopian Political Bias

The following videos demonstrate the verbal gymnastics Snopes frequently performs in lodge to vindicate the left and villify the right:

Snopes Is Political And Biased

Snopes Caught Lying in Set on on FreedomProject | Alex Newman & Dr. Knuckles Pesta

Snopes Is Wrong Nearly #WalkAway

Snopes Co-founder Speaks to CNN

In the post-obit video, Snopes co-founder David Mikkelson gives a rather bland overview to a CNN talking head. The comments following the video are actually more informative than Mikkelson's responses to the soft-brawl question thrown at him. The following comment by Darian Gregory offers a more useful overview of what "fake new" really is and how it operates:

I didn't need Trump to tell me CNN is admittedly not to be trusted. That they are trying to projection the idea that Snopes tin be trusted but reinforces that fact. I wish people would terminate saying "fake news" like it'southward a catch phrase. "Simulated News" implies incompetent journalism or tabloid instead of Agenda driven calculated lying. Some People love tabloid. Everybody hates Liars. These people (CNN and all the other messages) aren't incompetent. Information technology isn't a bunch of "oops my bad" moments. Information technology's calculated mis-data and outright lies. Mainstream media journalists are the mouthpieces of Liars. They are given an Agenda to stick to and they ameliorate stick to it. That's non journalism that'due south journal-ish. Why you remember with everything going on in our globe, they all tell the same exact news? Some of them probably accept people telling them what to say in real time through those ear pieces they all article of clothing. We don't demand these Networks anymore. The net is making them obsolete. People can now do their own research on issues that matter to them.

Sources

"Mom-and-Pop Site Busts the Spider web'due south Biggest Myths." NPR-Nashville Public Radio. March 20, 2010.
Lawsuit. Proper Media vs Bardav Inc and David Mikkelson. May 4, 2017.
Jennifer Van Grove. "Snopes prevails in tentative court ruling over finances, ownership." The San Diego Union-Tribune. Baronial 3, 2017.
David Mikkelson. "Is snopes.com biased?" Snopes. Apr 17, 2015.
Official Campaign Web Site - Elyssa Immature Library of Congress. October 29, 2004 to November viii, 2004
Bethania Palma. "Did Ben Carson Purchase a $31,000 Dining Set and Charge It to HUD?" Snopes. March one, 2018.
Rene Marsh. "Ben Carson says he wants to cancel $31,000 dining room article of furniture order." CNN. March i, 2018.
David Emery. "Capitol Crime." Snopes. July 26, 2016.
Kalev Leetaru. "The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers." Forbes. December 22, 2016.
"Nigh Snopes." Snopes.

Politifact & Snopes: Who Owns & Funds These "Fact-Checkers"?

Snopes and Politcal Bias

Questions & Answers

Question: What does the name "Snopes" hateful?

Answer: The proper noun "Snopes" comes from a series of novels and short stories written by William Faulkner, featuring the Snopes family, recurring characters in Faulkner's works.

Question: Is in that location a reliable fact-checking resources?

Reply: Media Research Center's NewsBusters is the most reliable source for fact-checking. Information technology also has begun a new project chosen "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers" at https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers. This projection focuses on how the left-leaning fact-checkers like Politifact and Snopes operate to spout their left-fly bias.

Excerpt from the site: "Fact checking groups — such every bit PolitiFact — routinely cast judgments while declining to disclose their own left-wing bias. Their allies in the media try to cast these groups as neutral tertiary parties when, in fact, they are card-carrying members of the liberal echo chamber. It'south no wonder that the public has and then fiddling religion in the fact-checkers. A 2016 Rasmussen poll found that an astonishing 62% of American voters think the fact-checkers are biased."

Question: Who is Kalev Leetaru?

Answer: Co-ordinate to his website at https://www.kalevleetaru.com: "Kalev co-founded his first spider web company in 1995, condign one of the early pioneers of the dot-com era while still in middle school. By the fourth dimension he was a junior in high school, Kalev's company had established its international reseller programme, with sales coming in from throughout the world. As a senior in high school, he became 1 of the first high school interns at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, where he co-led the cosmos of 1 of the earliest "web calibration" spider web mining platforms to understand evolving global trends. His undergraduate research lone yielded three issued United states patents anticipating the rise of deject computing that has been cited past 58 Us patents from companies ranging from Apple and Amazon to Google and Oracle, while he amassed more than than 50 University Invention Disclosures, placing him among the University's most prolific. Today his GDELT Projection is one of the largest global open up monitoring platforms on the planet, becoming the gold standard for computationally exploring human society."

Question: Why is the site called Snopes?

Answer: The proper noun "Snopes" comes from a series of novels and short stories penned by William Faulkner, featuring the Snopes family, recurring characters in Faulkner's works. David Mikkelson's affinity for folklore and urban legends inspired the founding of the company.

Snopes, Mother Shamed for Placing Baby on Airport Floor

Source: https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Snopes-and-Facts

Soward Whaturand38