Snopes, Fact-Checker For Facebook And Google, Botches Fact Check

[Standing Wolf]

Yea, as if you aren't highly partisan. This thread was about Snopes, not Trump. He really owns your head.

The comparison is fair and inevitable, Cap. Be honest - do you have a problem, when threads about something Trump has said or done are created, with people posting in response about Obama or Hillary? Do Obama and/or Hillary "own" Trump supporters when they do that?

[Ethereal]

Is that your opinion, or is that something you can actually demonstrate as true?

What would you consider an adequate demonstration?

The fact that Facebook and Google - bastions of liberal groupthink - picked them to be their "fact-checkers" is more than enough proof for me.

[Captdon]

The comparison is fair and inevitable, Cap. Be honest - do you have a problem, when threads about something Trump has said or done are created, with people posting in response about Obama or Hillary? Do Obama and/or Hillary "own" Trump supporters when they do that?

The thread wasn't about Trump.

When the post is about Trump bring up Obama and Clinton may well be legitimate. The subject then is politics.

I didn't say that Snopes was in Clinton's purse. That would be an argument. What you did was extraneous at best.

[Agent Zero]

Heres some sites I use, I use more than these

https://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://flackcheck.org/

https://www.factcheck.org/

Ok. You use Fact Check and it's sister site, Flack Check. Cool.

Here's what they had to say about Snopes:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/me...ed-snopes-com/

And their conclusion:

In 2009, we addressed Snopes.com’s alleged political bias and wrote that we found the website’s work to be “solid and well-documented,” and that its articles appeared “utterly poker-faced” when tackling rumors about Democratic and Republican politicians.We also noted at the time: “We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.”
At no point did we ever “expose” the myth-busting website as “an extremely liberal propaganda site with an agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.”
That false claim was made in a meme that began circulating on Facebook and other platforms in February. Several of our readers have asked us about it.
The meme says that Snopes.com has been “busted” as a “100% fake fact-checking site,” and that the Democratic National Committee and hedge fund billionaire George Soros have been “exposed” as its “clients.” It also features two photos purportedly showing the “Snopes CEO” meeting with Soros, who has long supported Democratic candidates and causes.

As for Truth or Fiction? It's a (taken from wiki) "mythbusting" website^[2][3][4][5] about urban legends, Internet rumors, "erumors", e-mail forwards, and other questionable pictures or stories.
So they're more like Snopes, except Snopes also delves into current issues.

it often addresses wild and amazing claims, pictures, or stories that resurface cyclically

I've looked a TorF before and seen it used as a source and didn't see anything much different than Snopes, other than even crazier conspiracies usually found on Facebook and right wing blogs.

So I pulled up the most recent fact check on both sites. It concerns a claim by a right wing site (The Blaze) that a school banned candy canes because they were a religious symbol. Really. Both treated it fairly and honestly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candy-can-ban-school/

https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-p...because-jesus/

And both agreed that the meme was real, but distorted.

In fact, TorF even went further, criticizing both the religious group and The Blaze for falsely claiming that candy canes were on a list of banned items.

The second question raised by the article was whether candy canes were indeed "banned" at Omaha's Manchester Elementary School. TheBlaze.com shared a memo uploaded to Liberty Counsel's website [PDF], in which the subject of Christmas was addressed at length.

The directives on the memo were ambiguous, but the general subject matter appeared to pertain entirely to school-provided materials (such as worksheets or projects directed by teachers). By describing the content of the memo as a "ban," readers were left with the impression that children themselves (not teachers and staff) were prohibited from possessing candy canes, Santas, or Elves on the Shelves.

Snopes merely said this:

Conservative news sites helped take the story national by serving up viral headlines such as “Principal banned candy canes because ‘J’ shape stands ‘for Jesus.’ But that was just for starters.”

My conclusion? Maybe, just maybe, if some right wing sites, blogs, facebook pages, Twitter users and so on would cease the endless unsubstantiated claims (more in the next post), then maybe they wouldn't be zinged so much.

[Agent Zero]

*And...before the conservatives on here start crying and whining about Politifact...Of course it seems like they're slanted against the right because of all the lies they expose. But they're not, as proven:

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~nas...smith.tr18.pdf

5 ConclusionOur analyses were not able to detect any systematic differences in the treatment of Democrats and Republicans inarticles by Politifact. We offer three suggestions for follow-up study or tracking in future. First, are the types andamount of evidence offered in articles similar for members of both parties? This is beyond the scope of text analysistools, but it should be relatively straightforward for experts to code a sample and perform a comparison. Second,language used in stories about guns may signal a pro-gun control stance. The tools used for this analysis are not aperfect fit for the data; we therefore suggest a small user study in which users’ perceptions of slant are comparedto their own positions on the gun control issue. Finally, we suggest comparing the rates of usage of known-partisanphrases in Politifact articles to rates in other text collections whose partisan status (or neutrality) is established.

And on Media Bias/Fact Check, which cites the above study:

Home » Politifact
Politifact

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 2007 by the Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact.com utilizes reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets to “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups”.They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a “Truth-O-Meter” rating. The ratings range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” (from the taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”) for false and ridiculous claims. In 2018, Politifact became affiliated with the Poynter Institute.
Funded by / Ownership
According to their about page “In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists. While PolitiFact relies on administrative support from the Poynter Institute, it is otherwise financially self-sustaining. PolitiFact receives support from online advertising, as well as revenue generated through content partnerships and from grants.”
Analysis / Bias
In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.




Seriously, guys and gals...If you don't want fact checkers zinging the right, may I make a suggestion?

Shut down Trump's twitter account.

[Ethereal]

*And...before the conservatives on here start crying and whining about Politifact...Of course it seems like they're slanted against the right because of all the lies they expose. But they're not, as proven:

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~nas...smith.tr18.pdf



And on Media Bias/Fact Check, which cites the above study:

Home » Politifact
Politifact


LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 2007 by the Tampa Bay Times, PolitiFact.com utilizes reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets to “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups”.They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a “Truth-O-Meter” rating. The ratings range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” (from the taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”) for false and ridiculous claims. In 2018, Politifact became affiliated with the Poynter Institute.
Funded by / Ownership
According to their about page “In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists. While PolitiFact relies on administrative support from the Poynter Institute, it is otherwise financially self-sustaining. PolitiFact receives support from online advertising, as well as revenue generated through content partnerships and from grants.”
Analysis / Bias
In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.




Seriously, guys and gals...If you don't want fact checkers zinging the right, may I make a suggestion?

Shut down Trump's twitter account.

Then call them pro-establishment. The point is that they have biases and agendas that inform their "fact-checking". They are not the dispassionate or neutral arbiters of fact that they present themselves as because nobody is truly dispassionate. Humans are emotional creatures. The way these pro-establishment outlets pretend to be above it all - including basic human emotions - is one of the reasons why regular people hate them so much.

[Captdon]

Ok. You use Fact Check and it's sister site, Flack Check. Cool.

Here's what they had to say about Snopes:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/me...ed-snopes-com/

And their conclusion:



As for Truth or Fiction? It's a (taken from wiki) "mythbusting" website^[2][3][4][5] about urban legends, Internet rumors, "erumors", e-mail forwards, and other questionable pictures or stories.
So they're more like Snopes, except Snopes also delves into current issues.



I've looked a TorF before and seen it used as a source and didn't see anything much different than Snopes, other than even crazier conspiracies usually found on Facebook and right wing blogs.

So I pulled up the most recent fact check on both sites. It concerns a claim by a right wing site (The Blaze) that a school banned candy canes because they were a religious symbol. Really. Both treated it fairly and honestly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/candy-can-ban-school/

https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-p...because-jesus/

And both agreed that the meme was real, but distorted.

In fact, TorF even went further, criticizing both the religious group and The Blaze for falsely claiming that candy canes were on a list of banned items.



Snopes merely said this:



My conclusion? Maybe, just maybe, if some right wing sites, blogs, facebook pages, Twitter users and so on would cease the endless unsubstantiated claims (more in the next post), then maybe they wouldn't be zinged so much.

When you pay attention to what's going on you don't need a fact checker. There's your downfall. You either don't pay attention or you don't understand what's going on. both are your fault.