The “fact checking” website Snopes.com has come under considerable fire during the last few months and for good reason.
As many publications have noted, while Snopes pretends to be a neutral site looking only for the true facts, many of its writers, and the actual owners, lean a little bit to the left when they walk down the street.
It has also become painfully obvious more and more of the “true” stories support a liberal agenda whereas most of the stories that would support the right tend to be considered “fake news” by the “neutral” publication.
After doing some digging on various websites, I believe The Angry Patriot has found ample proof that Snopes is indeed FAKE NEWS!
1 – The first reason is not so much reason as it is a suspicion. Liberal Facebook is all of a sudden deciding it wants to monitor the news to ensure its members are getting only REAL news. Now, Facebook’s leadership is notoriously left-wing oriented, so it would make sense it would find a left-friendly “fact-checking” website to back its own agenda.
2 – Snopes has made it a point to go after right-wing oriented publications as all fake news. However, a publication that publishes real news with a political opinion is not fake news — it is news with an opinion. If the writer’s opinion differs from that of the Snopes fact-checker, they deem it to be fake news.
3 – Ownership of Snopes is questionable at best. Barbara and David Mikkelson are less than reputable individuals, with David allegedly embezzling close to $100,000 from his own company. And this is the man Facebook is entrusting to decide what is real and what is fake.
4 – David and Barbara are now divorced, but David has since been remarried to Elyssa Young, another less than reputable individual. She is an alleged former escort and porn actress who ran for Congress as a Libertarian. She is now on the Snopes payroll, yet they still claim the publication has no political agenda or influence at all.
5 – A fact checking organization needs to be completely transparent, yet Snopes appears to be anything but. According to one of our sources, a Daily Mail article specifically asked them for comments about a legal issue David had regarding his salary, but both David and Barbara refused to comment on the situation. Meaning, the organization’s transparency is not so transparent, which is not exactly what one would expect from the company responsible for what is and what is not considered news for the American people.
6 – As far as we can tell, Snopes will pretty much hire anyone off the street with ZERO qualifications for fact checking. For an organization such as this, significant research is required, which means more than quickly Googling a few articles that counter the story. There needs to be actual proof the source article in question is wrong, and that requires some training. Looking over the roster of writers, there are some people working there with very definitive leanings and no prior experience as fact checkers.
For a publication this influential, I would expect to see every staff member with a list of credentials as long as my arm. Instead, we see maybe two people with legitimate credentials, and the rest of the staff is nothing more than recirculated online writers and bloggers. And, unless I am mistaken, I did not SEE anyone on staff with a significant background in fact checking.
7 – Several significant stories have come under question prior to this election cycle. One of the most notable was a story about aspartame where Snopes used one doctor’s testimony to debunk a story. However, numerous professionals came out to decry that doctor’s comments, proving at the very least his “opinion” on the matter was questionable at best.
This goes to an earlier point where I stated the publication has a tendency to find one article or source that will prove the decision they want to make, and they use that to back up their story. Any debunking must be backed by numerous legitimate sources that, without doubt, debunk the story. That is not the norm for Snopes.
8 – A recent story that Snopes debunked was that Keith Ellison and Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not get out of their seats during Trump’s joint session address when he was honoring the widow of a fallen Navy SEAL. The problem here is that nobody claimed they did not stand at all — the claim was they remained seated during the two-minute ovation given to the widow.
Sobbing widow of slain Navy Seal receives 2 minute standing ovation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Keith Ellison stay firmly seated, no claps
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) March 1, 2017
We actually did a story on this very topic and specifically mentioned the moment many of the Dems chose to stay seated during President Trump’s speech. Our claim, like the one above, is that they did not stand during the two-minute plus ovation.
When Trump initially introduced the widow, everyone at the session, at least most of them, stood to applaud her presence. Not much later, Trump again pointed to the widow to honor her after making some comments about her fallen husband, and she received the extended standing ovation — at least from people with respect for the sacrifice her husband gave for this country.
Snopes debunked the story by pointing to the initial introduction and proclaimed the story as fake news. Once again, Snopes twisted the actual facts to support a liberal point of view.
9 – During the election period, SuperStation95 reported an anchor for WABC TV in New York City was reporting on Hillary Clinton’s death. Snopes debunked the story with the reason that if it were true, it would have blown up social media.
Unfortunately for Snopes, the anchor actually DID start off his broadcast by saying “Good evening, we begin with the breaking news of Hillary Clinton’s death.”
As you may recall, this happened during the 9/11 tribute ceremony after Hillary collapsed going back to her van from what we were later told was heat exhaustion. In the hours that followed, Hillary’s camp was not exactly forthcoming with information, and there was a lot of speculation there was something seriously wrong with the former first lady.
The station later admitted to the error by the anchor, but at the time of the broadcast, the error was never corrected, and this intro blew up all over the place. So, while the anchor did make an error, Snopes was completely wrong in saying SuperStation95 erroneously reported the story.
10 – Snopes also debunked a story that we and several other publications ran that claimed, “Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.” While they conceded that Hillary did in fact defend him, what they proved false has nothing at all to do with the case.
Snopes’ debunking gave this specific reason for the Mostly False rating: “Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story,’ she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not ‘free’ the defendant.”
Now, as far as I can tell, that “False” claim has nothing to do with the actual claim of Hillary defending the rapist. The rating should have been TRUE because she did defend him, AND she did laugh about it while doing an interview with Roy Reed in the 1980s.
The moment of the laugh came when she was describing the case where she stated, “It was a fascinating case. The guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Of course, he claimed that he didn’t. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” And then she laughed.
This is not fake news folks — listen to it for yourself…
Again, I am no legal expert, but that sure does sound like an admission of someone who once defended a man for raping a 12-year-old girl, knowing he was guilty, and then laughing about it, yet Snopes still decided the original claim was “Mostly False.”
The internet is littered with stories of Snopes mishaps and actual evidence proving the fact checkers are in fact WRONG!
If a fact checking publication is to be considered legitimate, they simply cannot be wrong EVER! They have to meticulously check and recheck the facts and not actually report a story until they are 100 percent sure they have every little detail correct. Then, and only then, can they publish a story.
Snopes has an agenda when it comes to politics, and it is not one that can be trusted for proving or debunking stories. The publication had more than a few mistakes when it was merely debunking urban legends, but when they got into the political business, they were in over their heads because their own writers cannot leave their liberal agendas at the door when they report to work.
Snopes is not meant to be an opinion based blog but a very influential and powerful fact checking organization responsible for differentiating fact from fiction for the biggest social media outlet in the world… and they are reporting opinions instead of fact.
When it comes to fake news, Snopes should be an example of fake news reporting, not the outlet responsible for policing it.
What do you think of Snopes.com? Please share this on Facebook and tell us because we want to hear YOUR voice!