Snopes is no longer the gold standard for fact checking

As my most dedicated fans will be aware, I’ve previously written about how terrible birth control is for women…Now in my original article, I may have said something along the lines of, “Your birth control injection will add on pounds that will prevent the injection you really want — of man meat.”

Sometimes I can’t help how witty and hilarious I am, but others often don’t appreciate my playful nature and sophisticated sense of humour.

…CNN talking head and anti-Trump pundit Maria Cardona falsely attributed the line from my article to Breitbart’s former Executive Chairman, Steve Bannon, who recently joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. This of course was done on purpose to try and paint Bannon in a negative light. As usual, when leftists can’t find any actual dirt on someone they have to create it out of thin air.

So why did the popular fact-checking website Snopes give a “mixed truth” rating to a clear lie? They argue that because “Steve Bannon was the Executive Chairman of Breitbart when the web site published an article asserting that birth control made women fat and prevented them from getting “man meat” injections,” this is enough to award Cardona’s statement “mixed truth.”

But, as the Snopes article acknowledges, Bannon did not write the article. He never edited it either — it’s absurd to suggest a media executive is responsible for individual lines in stories. Snopes’ verdict should have been “completely false,” not “mixed truth.” It was quite simply a false attribution.

Then again, Snopes — once the gold standard of internet fact-checkers — has been drifting towards political partisanship for a while now. In a piece about Khizr Khan’s financial ties to Hillary Clinton, they referred to us as “the unreliable Breitbart.” 

The article attempts to defend Khan from claims that he is “deeply connected” to the Clintons, claiming (incorrectly) that his law firm’s connection to Saudi Arabia, a Clinton Foundation donor, was the only connection. It ignores the deeper connection, between Khan’s colleague Howard Topaz and the Clintons, to whom Topaz regularly provided tax advice.

These attempts to alter the truth or “correct the record” are a common leftist tactic — the liberal bias at PolitiFact, for example, is well-documented.  But Snopes had, at least until now, avoided such obvious bias.  Snopes began life in non-political form, in the early era of the web, with a focus on debunking urban legends and conspiracy theories. It quickly grew to become the go-to “debunking” site on the web. But now it looks like they’ve squandered that distinctive track record to become another boring leftist “fact-checker.”

… As things stand, websites like Snopes that are willing to sell out their hard-won reputations to advance personal political prejudices have a rapidly shortening shelf life.

Just remember, when Daddy Trump takes office he won’t vow to destroy antagonistic news organizations as free speech-hater Hillary Clinton has. He’ll simply allow organizations like Breitbart to continue telling the truth, and let audiences vote with their feet. So to Snopes, CNN, and other leftist propaganda outlets (not to mention establishment GOP shops), I say this: enjoy it while it lasts, because we’re coming for you.

-breitbart.com

  • Jman

    That’s a shame. I’ve been a big fan of Snopes for many years but it seems leftist fever is quite contagious.

  • LesleyNZ

    Lately I have noticed that SNOPES has become very sympathetic towards Hillary and the opposite to Donald. This is disappointing because SNOPES has been a really good website.

  • oldmanNZ

    Who checks the checkers?
    The internet is a virtual world, its not real and made by many people.
    Even printed media is suspected.

    So where do you go for correct facts?

    God?

  • jimknowsall

    Surely the “mixed truth” refers to the assertion about birth control injections putting on weight? And whilst I quite like Breitbart, I would never consider them infallible, just as I don’t consider the Herald or the Guardian infallible either. It is written by journalists, not primary sources, so it can never truly be considered reliable.

52%