pfft they sure think they're big shots. They see themselves as arbiters of truth protecting democracies around the world:
So? It's not bigfoot Facebook is interested in them "fact" checking.
Snopes Is a Sneaky Liar About California’s Bill To Ban Christian LGBT Talk
https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/
Hilarious. You start with Zerohedge and Daily Mail and now you've moved on to the Federalist.
...but supposedly you're concerned about bias and accuracy.
Snopes always always uses a strawman argument, changing the wording of the question just enough so that they are technically not wrong. Then your average idiot parrots what they think they have read. In terms of sneaky misinformation tactics, it's why Google loves them.
...and here we see the typical persecution complex on display.
So far you're failing to point out any actual misinformation.
Even your Federalist article admits they are right, "Sure, it is virtually impossible that California will immediately attempt to ban the sale of the Bible itself. "
The video they were responding to was pretty obvious tabloid journalism.
Here we see you try and switch back from "they cover more right wing stuff" to "their reports are biased" and yet you fail utterly to demonstrate that with any actual examples whatsoever.
That's been the story of all your posts in this thread. A lack of actual examples.
That's the narrative you are using to explain the glaring bias in what Snopes chooses to report.
Like I said, that means you are now admitting to the glaring number of biased pages on their website and are offering an explanation that absolves them of any bias in cherry picking which ones to cover and how to phrase the claims. Laughable.
I have offered we go through the links for CNN and migrants you have not accepted that offer.
No, covering more right-wing false stories isn't "bias" when there's a lot more of them.
I've already shown that they cover plenty of left-wing material and apolitical material, in exactly the same manner. You on the other hand have gone to exactly the sort of sources pushing the claims they debunked, and posted that as evidence of their bias.
Hilarious.
Funny how that conveniently fits the leftist narrative. Lots of news showing migrants in a bad light. Best to look for all the out-there claims we can debunk making them look good. No bias right?
Yeah, the fact that most of the fake political stories being shared on social media are pandering to the right-wing is a left-wing plot... that's a great way to view the problem.
This isn't even that critical of left. Makes look Trump bad by association, picture and all etc.
Uhuh... so debunking a trending left-wing meme on social media isn't critical of the left, and it makes Trump look bad because they repeat the meme.
Right. Your ability to analyse information is amazing, no wonder you have a problem with snopes.
They are obviously biased too. It wasn't a random meme that started the claim, it was the MSM and whatever whackjobs there that decide Trump meant "all immigrants". So maybe they really liked that meme that they had to make a page for it, can't imagine why. If you scroll further down, Hitler and Trump together hah.
WHAT'S TRUE
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party consistently described Jewish people as animals.
or
WHAT'S TRUE
The MSM defended MS-13 and tried to
promoted a flase narrative about what Trump said to make it look like "all immigrants". One they backtracked on.
They go with the first.
Yeah... you seemed to miss the "What's False" section.
"Neither of the quotes offered in the meme is a literal one, and Trump's quote more specifically described MS-13 gang members as "animals.""
Seems accurate.
That's not representative of impartiality at all. You are saying that just by reporting on something from Raw Story, because it's a trashy left-wing site, the contents automatically is unflattering to the left? I went through two pages of links and that's not what I'm seeing. In fact overwhelming majority don't look good for the right.
Also that raw story link is buried in the article right in the middle, it's not in the headers anywhere on the age, it's not in the search results anywhere. Ctrl+F won't indicate which ones are and aren't in the search results page. Some of them just infer Raw Story as one of the news outlets covering a story other outlets also reported on.
I linked an actual story. Are you going to say the coverage of the O'Reilly story also was a "left wing narrative"? Amazing.
Yes, Raw Story is usually listed as a source for claims that are being spread on twitter or facebook. That's how snopes operates. The majority of their political stories are responses to viral memes, chain posts, tweets etc. Their writers have backgrounds which typically intersect with social media such as news aggregator sites, fact checking (for other organisations) and science communication.
I'm sure you read my post on the political affiliation of their employees. Fake news?
You mean the article from Zerohedge? Hah. They have 9 article writers, and the most left-wing of them is Arturo Garcia (based on his own history of stories for Racialicious, Alternet, The Guardian and Raw Story).
Funnily enough their "proof" of his bias isn't actually any article he's written, and nothing he's done for snopes, but rather this tweet.
That's it.
You're really attempting to champion Zerohedge against Snopes... says it all really.
People are just upset that their bullshit is being called out.
