how credible is snopes?

[taxidriver]

i keep hearing that people refute repub emails and urban legends with helpe from snopes.com. who runs that site? is it some smart group of scientists, or what?

[NMDemDist2]

1. nah just a couple who do good research eom

[FDRrocks]

2. I think it's just some normal people...

they don't seem to have any partisan standing really. Unless its a bit to the right. I remember a few instances where they seemed to post stuff without really looking into it. One such was on Michael Moore, I forget the specific (I'm really backing up my statement, eh :)), but they had to change the page after recieving many e-mails correcting them.

[Eric J in MN]

3. I usually agree with Snopes, but there was one case in which

I usually agree with Snopes, but there was one case in which a Green Party chairwoman was harassed by airport security, and Snopes belittled it.

But I usually like Snopes.

[FDRrocks]

4. When I read the article about that on the GP site...

that was the precise moment, like the very second, when I realized the post-9/11 legislation was sliding down the slippery slope. A seminal and very disgusting moment.

[TryingToWarnYou]

5. Well, this is my opinion....

They have good information, but a lot of the folks that post on their forums are stuck up assholes. They think because they investigate urban legends that they are somehow better than those that don't.

Holier than thou and don't you forget it.

[Birthmark]

6. Snopes is very credible

While they may occasionally make a mistake, they will correct it based on evidence. That is the very hallmark of credibility.

[salib]

7. Research is the important thing

I do not think they are an "authority", but certainly it is a good place to look for research into many of the "legends" on the web. You still make your own decisions, or pursue the research further. But at least one does not have to simply accept as dogma everything that comes on the e-mail stream.

Good to have as a reference, and often difficult to refute the research.

[Lisa0825]

8. when it comes to non-political questions, they are great!!!!

I honestly have never turned to them for political issues, so I don't know how that influences them. But otherwise, I think they are tops!!!

[Lex]

9. I sure have shut up the fundie relatives

and various right-wingers who fill my email box up with pure crap--I just hit "reply to all" and send the snopes refutation of whatever their latest BS is. It's especially nice when you can make the right wing idiot look like an idiot to everyone they've sent the stupid email to.

[AwakeAtLast]

10. That works for me, too!

The garbage sent to my in box has decreased tremendously.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi WakeMeUp!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[yardwork]

30. I do the same thing - hit reply to all. It makes some people mad

but those are the people I don't want filling up my mailbox with their crap anyway.

Welcome to DU!

[SW FL Dem]

17. I always hit Reply All,

It pisses some people off, but it usually gets them to stop sending me junk. Unfortunately, if the sender sends the email via bcc's you can't hit reply all.

[Az]

12. In matters of urban legends they are about the best

But when it gets to matters of opinions regarding politics they are just as fallible as the next person. Their political leanings appear to go to the right. But not morbidly so.

[dutchdemocrat]

13. They tore into Michael Moore big time

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Unfortunately they are biased and, despite the apology which appears on the link above, I lost all respect for Snopes. There is little balance in their investigations and they cherry pick, often ignoring anything that tampers with Bush or the current administration.

They are the enemy.

On edit:

And he's still wrong about the flights.

[bryant69]

22. They are the enemy?

Is any American who doesn't agree with us the enemy? Or just snopes?

I mean I have a libertarian friend, who say's he's probably going to vote for Bush, should I disown him?

At any rate, I like Snopes--they did a number on Michael Moore, but some of that was justifed--Michael Moore is not a rigorous documentarian, and while I think he's generally right on the big picture, he does often make mistakes in the small stuff.

But did you check out their debunking of the Clinton Death Count? That I've used with several friends, and it's very well done.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dutchdemocrat]

23. The enemy thing?

Yea.... a bit harsh.

Sorry, but I read what he took out prior to his apology (the attack on Moore)

And as for Moore, I make no apologies, he is a propagandist as is Air America Radio. There are many ways to present information as we all know, and it seemed the Mikkelson's had a bone to pick with Moore and let their politics enter what should be an unbiased, objective website.

The enemy? Well, in my opinion people that use neutral websites such as (or what should be) Snopes ought to keep the politics balanced and quit editorialising.

Hey, they had the nuts to apologise and own up to their 'error'. It makes no difference to me, because they are cherry pickers and take more shots at Kerry and none at Bush.

Glad to see Moore added Cannes Palme d'Or to his Oscar. Let's see if Moore can pull the buschco down.

Oh... as for Snopes? Who pays the bills?

[bryant69]

26. Actually they did a good job

Debunking some of the early attacks on Kerry--the ones about his service record. --> http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Besides their format isn't set up for them to take shots at anybody--someone has to make a claim for them to debunk it or support it.

[Mike Daniels]

24. Anyone who goes to that much effort to debunk something

can't be that far to the right of center.

They've debunked several other legends that slam the Clintons so I don't buy the "they're repukes" spin that you see on DU from time to time.

[dutchdemocrat]

27. You didn't read

the slam on Moore then. I wrote them off when I read it. The apology later was icing on the cake.

It was so obviously biased and vitriolic.

Sorry... the little Clinton makerovers are history anyway. Just look at the balance....

Here's some cherry picking from me from their 'new' crap.

http://www.snopes.com/info/whatsnew.asp

How George W. Bush once referred to a reporter he disliked. (27 April 2004)

Message from National Guardsman chronicles U.S. accomplishments in rebuilding Iraq. (27 April 2004)

That 'Osama bin Laden Captured' e-mail carries not important news, but a malicious trojan.

How John Kerry referred to one of the Secret Service agents assigned to guard him.

Old folklore, new target: Humorous "letter" from a college student to her parents is reworked into a jab at John Kerry.

Does Senator John Kerry's wife own Heinz, a company that outsources much of its work abroad? (30 March 2004)

Of purloined pizza and other matters: Is Senator John Kerry known for behaving rudely towards others?

Does a photograph show Alexandra Kerry in a see-through dress? (24 May 2004)

[Bandit]

28. It is getting more like that every day

America was never quite this bad as far as vindictivness and cruelty. An enemy is someone who wishes to do you harm. IMHO most wing-nuts do just that. Not everyone is a wing-nut but if they support the wing-nuts how do you tell the difference. We are engaged in a clash of culture in America and it has the very soul of our country at stake. There were stories of Civil war soldiers of both sides working together at certain times. When I was in Vietnam a certain city I spent time in was considered an NVA R&R center. There were certain bars where we would sit at one end and Vietnamese men at the other and we all knew we were on different sides but quietly drank our drinks and never said a word to each other. It was just understood. You want to associate with someone you know is going to vote against your best interests and the best interests of your country it is up to you. I prefer to avoid those people unless it is unavoidable.

[Tinoire]

14. I'm not big on them for anything political. n/t

[w4rma]

15. Very accurate. But on politics, sometimes off, but never far, imho. (nt)

[RebelOne]

16. Here's another good debunking site.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/

[LuminousX]

18. As with all things

never rely upon one source for your information.

Snopes is a great start but should not be the end-all be-all of debunking because otherwise their mistakes (and they do make mistakes) become as pervasive and annoying as the crap they are trying to debunk.

[Killarney]

19. They lean right. He tore into Moore and lied about the flights.

[Richardo]

21. Hey, I tear into Moore all the time and I don't "lean right"

He unnecessarily manipulates facts to make his points and delivers his message with a sledgehammer. No me gusta.

[dutchdemocrat]

29. Like Fox News right?

Give me a break. I admitted he IS a propagandist. He cuts and edits what he wants. Just like Fox.

Except he's a brilliant film maker. This is about progressive media. GOOD. He hits hard.

Wahhh... cry. Too bad he won more than you can ever dream of.

[Richardo]

32. So: He's not as bad as Fox News. Pretty low bar.

I'm not in competition with him so I don't care how much he's won. Good for him, I guess.

I just do not find his style at all compelling, and I'm not swayed by his overstated argumentative style.

And I'm in the choir. Imagine how quickly he alienates people who are on the fence, let alone on the other side.

There's plenty to enlighten people about regarding the criminality of this administration. I just prefer the style of Krugman, Alterman, Conason and John Dean to make the points. If I want a light hearted touch I go with Franken.

[dutchdemocrat]

33. Well all I can say is...

Oscar and Palme d'Or...

If if takes the baseball bat of Moore's propaganda and well clipped films to wake up not only America but the world, then we can only win can't we?

As for Krugman and Conason - I certainly read and appreciate their work.

But who has more impact right NOW? Who will and can make a difference?

Not the print lads. They won't sway... not when you are talking about an illiterate nation and the consolidation of newspapers.

Moore is doing the right thing. He's hit mainstream - he just won in Cannes, the distribution deal will go down in the US - There's money to be made. And there is a government that need toppling.

All the little preditorials in print (Krugman, Alterman, Conason and John Dean) that the majority of Americans can't be bothered going past the first paragraph are lifted by the visual work of Moore.

You don't like it? Too bad. You watch Faux News every day? Just another angle isn't it?

'Fahrenheit 9/11' marks the end of the junta. Forget print. It's dead. Film wins.

[TheRedMan]

20. Notice at the bottom of all their reports they list their sources

I really can't think of a more above-board way to do what they do. I think they run a great site, and consider them extremely reliable. (they did shoot down some 60 anti-Clinton myths, so I have a hard time thinking that they are all that conservative).

But, as I noted in the subject, they ALWAYS list the sources for their information, so you are free to make your own judgements.

[sandnsea]

25. The SSI Email

I got that from my sister yesterday which absolutely shocked me because she usually doesn't forward that crap to me. I found the SSI web site itself to have a much better refute than snopes.

[fujiyama]

31. Great

for non political things. It's quite comprehensive.

I also thought they did a decent job when it came to debunking fake Kerry pics.