Author Topic: Snopes got snoped.  (Read 654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,025
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Snopes got snoped.
« on: February 04, 2014, 05:47:53 AM »
Snopes Got Snoped



Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.


Snopes.com has been considered the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, “See, I told you it wasn’t true!” But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.



David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above;  are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website  ’Snopes’  about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when ‘Snopes’ was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.


 



In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson’s were quick to “research” this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

 

But the Mikkelson’s never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the “final factual word” on the issue.

 

What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don’t go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do.

http://worldtruth.tv/snopes-got-snoped/
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:48:37 AM by rangerrebew »
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
Re: Snopes got snoped.
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2014, 06:15:53 AM »
Quote
‘Snopes’ was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

About time.
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Offline WAYNE

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Snopes got snoped.
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2014, 06:24:57 AM »
   No disrespect intended but check the date of the link.

Offline rb224315

  • Custom Title goes here
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • Personal Text goes here
Re: Snopes got snoped.
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2014, 01:17:27 PM »
   No disrespect intended but check the date of the link.

Maybe I'm slow but I don't get your point.  Is the article not accurate because the date isn't what you expected it to be?
rb224315:  just another "Creepy-ass Cracka".

Offline WAYNE

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Snopes got snoped.
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2014, 03:21:36 PM »
Maybe I'm slow but I don't get your point.  Is the article not accurate because the date isn't what you expected it to be?



  No , my point is the article is over a year old and there has been many articles since that either back up snopes or dont back up snopes ..

http://www.snopes.com/humor/lists/fakenews.asp  Fake stories.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm   Half truths .

https://www.facebook.com/notes/billy-martin/proof-snopescom-is-fake-can-not-be-used-for-the-truth/573901245964384    Face book..

http://www.ask.com/question/is-snopes-accurate  Ask.com Pro snopes..


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf