Posted on Dec 7, 2018
Liberal Fact-Checker Snopes Caught Approving 'Wildly Misleading,' Anti-GOP Fake News
1.14K
11
12
3
3
0
Snopes built its reputation debunking "old wives tales", then became a propaganda tool of the Progressive Left
Liberal Fact-Checker Snopes Caught Approving 'Wildly Misleading,' Anti-GOP Fake News
Posted from westernjournal.comPosted in these groups: 
Journalism
Propaganda
Journalism Propaganda
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Snopes has updated its article to address the incorrect faces discussion.
After carefully reading the page that SFC (Join to see) thoughtfully added in his comment, the Snopes article appears to be mostly correct.
The Snopes article states "By our count, at least 34 Republican legislators who voted to repeal or partially repeal Obamacare will not be returning to Congress when the new session begins in January 2019."
Snopes is not infallible, and, like most of us, appreciates being informed when their fly is mistakenly left open, and will review, update, and correct its errors.
There is a good reason we have the phrase "I stand corrected."
After carefully reading the page that SFC (Join to see) thoughtfully added in his comment, the Snopes article appears to be mostly correct.
The Snopes article states "By our count, at least 34 Republican legislators who voted to repeal or partially repeal Obamacare will not be returning to Congress when the new session begins in January 2019."
Snopes is not infallible, and, like most of us, appreciates being informed when their fly is mistakenly left open, and will review, update, and correct its errors.
There is a good reason we have the phrase "I stand corrected."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
More spin by a right-wing rag. Here is what Snopes said:
"this one got the general idea and numbers correct (even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify)'
It is true that 33 GOP Congressmen lost their seats. Actually the count is now 40.
More fake news from the right.
"this one got the general idea and numbers correct (even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify)'
It is true that 33 GOP Congressmen lost their seats. Actually the count is now 40.
More fake news from the right.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
To be fair though, the meme does specifically speak of the out-voting of those specifically covered by an X. Those Xs represent specific people who supposedly represented a specific voting stance on the Affordable Care Act, and are supposedly voted out because of it.
I felt that Snopes failed to address that prominent part of the meme; to debunk the accuracy of those marked by the Xs. Instead, they counted the individual Xs, totaled them up, and then formed an argument around that general idea. Note that the original meme is not a general claim of "33 GOP Congresspeople," it is specific to the marking of specific people.
In my opinion on this particular case, it appears like the evaluator started with a "True" in mind, and then found a way to make it so. It honestly looks similar to what I see with the NCOER writing process, where people subjectively choose a rating block before even evaluating the full data of the NCO's performance. It then leads to them ignoring objective factors that would modify the overall rating.
Don't get me wrong, this Conservative Tribune article wreaks of emotion-driven conservative bias, but their main argument against the fact-check of this particular meme isn't unreasonable.
I felt that Snopes failed to address that prominent part of the meme; to debunk the accuracy of those marked by the Xs. Instead, they counted the individual Xs, totaled them up, and then formed an argument around that general idea. Note that the original meme is not a general claim of "33 GOP Congresspeople," it is specific to the marking of specific people.
In my opinion on this particular case, it appears like the evaluator started with a "True" in mind, and then found a way to make it so. It honestly looks similar to what I see with the NCOER writing process, where people subjectively choose a rating block before even evaluating the full data of the NCO's performance. It then leads to them ignoring objective factors that would modify the overall rating.
Don't get me wrong, this Conservative Tribune article wreaks of emotion-driven conservative bias, but their main argument against the fact-check of this particular meme isn't unreasonable.
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
SFC (Join to see) - I will repeat, from Snopes: even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify)'
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison I already read the whole thing and included that in my personal assessment (which doesn't hold any weight outside of my mind).
The main fact-checked claim should have been the debunking of the specifics of the photo, because that is what the meme specifically claims. The meme was not a general claim in its origins, therefore a wholly "True" evaluation was inaccurate. In their original assessment, they modified the original claim so that the "True" rating still applied, while making a much weaker reference to the inability to identify the specific faces in the body text.
That would be like using a collage picture of a group of former Presidents, and haphazardly marking President Kennedy's and President Obama's face, claiming "those marked with an X were the closest in recent history to being impeached and/or removed from office." Then a fact-check evaluator marks the claim as "True," because President Nixon and President Clinton were also in the collage, so there WERE two Presidents that were very close. Meanwhile not debunking that the image has the wrong people marked, except as a parenthetical somewhere in the body.
We should be able to objectively call that for what it is. To me, it does not automatically invalidate their other assessments. It just makes this particular one look bad.
The main fact-checked claim should have been the debunking of the specifics of the photo, because that is what the meme specifically claims. The meme was not a general claim in its origins, therefore a wholly "True" evaluation was inaccurate. In their original assessment, they modified the original claim so that the "True" rating still applied, while making a much weaker reference to the inability to identify the specific faces in the body text.
That would be like using a collage picture of a group of former Presidents, and haphazardly marking President Kennedy's and President Obama's face, claiming "those marked with an X were the closest in recent history to being impeached and/or removed from office." Then a fact-check evaluator marks the claim as "True," because President Nixon and President Clinton were also in the collage, so there WERE two Presidents that were very close. Meanwhile not debunking that the image has the wrong people marked, except as a parenthetical somewhere in the body.
We should be able to objectively call that for what it is. To me, it does not automatically invalidate their other assessments. It just makes this particular one look bad.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I wonder how many readers of this article actually looked for the Snopes article it claims to fact-check, in order to fact-check the fact-checking for themselves? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-obamacare-repeal-election/
After reviewing the snopes.com fact-check the article is referring to, my personal opinion is the Snopes article IS misleading. It looks like Snopes paraphrased the meme, then used their paraphrasing as the main claim they were verifying; basically a Straw Man. While they did address the inaccuracies of the picture portion of the meme in the text, they appeared to minimize those details.
In my opinion, whether a site calls themselves "fact-checkers" or not, liberal and conservative consumers treat EVERYTHING as a "fact-check," when it confirms their bias. Which goes back to my original question of how many researched the referenced Snopes article. If we read any article and believe it at face value, without researching it ourselves, we have just treated that article in the same way as a fact-check website.
What happens when they make a fact-check that actually supports a conservative/republican figure? Should those not be trusted either?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-burn-democrats/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veterans-day-56-years/
After reviewing the snopes.com fact-check the article is referring to, my personal opinion is the Snopes article IS misleading. It looks like Snopes paraphrased the meme, then used their paraphrasing as the main claim they were verifying; basically a Straw Man. While they did address the inaccuracies of the picture portion of the meme in the text, they appeared to minimize those details.
In my opinion, whether a site calls themselves "fact-checkers" or not, liberal and conservative consumers treat EVERYTHING as a "fact-check," when it confirms their bias. Which goes back to my original question of how many researched the referenced Snopes article. If we read any article and believe it at face value, without researching it ourselves, we have just treated that article in the same way as a fact-check website.
What happens when they make a fact-check that actually supports a conservative/republican figure? Should those not be trusted either?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-burn-democrats/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veterans-day-56-years/
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google