Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

[HonestJohn]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/23/why-is-mail-online-going-after-fact-checkers-snopes

Jasper Jackson
Friday 23 December 2016 07.46 EST

On Wednesday evening, Mail Online published a lengthy investigation into fact-checking site Snopes containing salacious details gleaned from legal battles between its recently divorced cofounders.

The claims, mainly about the sexual history and preferences of Snopes employees, but also allegations of financial misbehaviour by its founder, David Mikkelson, which he disputes, are titillating but not Earth shattering.

Far more revealing is Mail Online’s decision to go after Snopes and the way it has gone about it.

Snopes started out fact-checking urban myths (for example, recurring claims that the moon landings were staged) but amid concerns about fake news and its impact on democracy, the site became a resource for calling out false stories. Throughout the US election, Snopes debunked articles on everything from President Barack Obama planning to issue a blanket pardon for Hillary Clinton to Pope Francis backing Donald Trump.

It wasn’t a huge surprise when Snopes was named, along with ABC News, the Associated Press and other fact-checking websites such as Politifact.com, as one of the third-party sources Facebook would use to help it flag disputed stories.

One week later and there, in a prominent position on the Mail Online homepage, was a 1,400-word article about Snopes’ founders’ finances and relationships.

There are obvious merits to the story for avid Mail Online readers – the headline includes the words “escort-porn star” and “Vice Vixen domme” for a start – and the financial claims give some justifiable news value.

But the way the story is written hints at what the publication thinks, not just of Snopes, but of any sort of effort to do something about false information on the web.

The key giveaway is its use of quotation marks around the phrases “fake news”, “fact check” and “fact checker”, despite the fact that previous Mail articles have regularly used the words without any.

(more at link)

[geronl]

How dare they touch a liberal icon, how dare they!

[jmyrlefuller]

Because, not unlike the Enquirer, the Mail is a tabloid that will publish anything if the price is right.

[EC]

Q - Why is the Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

A - Because the Mail Online is the premiere source of BS passing as respectable news.

Keep saying this. The Daily Mail has two aspects. If you are reading a story with "for the Daily Mail" in the heading/byline, chances are you are reading something legit.
If it says "for Mail Online" in the byline, chances are you are reading the products of the writers in depth research of his own colon.

[geronl]

Because, not unlike the Enquirer, the Mail is a tabloid that will publish anything if the price is right.

Still seems better than the Guardian, which says liberal institutions must not be criticized.

[Doug Loss]

This is from the Guardian, a primary source of screamingly-leftist fake news stories itself.  Of course it excoriates anyone pulling the curtain away from the leftist narrative that anything they say is objective and true while anything said against them is "fake news."

[Sighlass]

Lol, the guardian is protecting their liberal friends at Snopes. Of course the Guardian didn't provide a link to the article in question, I had to google it.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

Trash reading, but I didn't see where they distorted any facts like Snopes has for political reasons. (Flags at Democratic convention for example).

The Dailymail is a plenty low life, but most the time they go after both sides equally unlike the Guardian.

[Smokin Joe]

This is from the Guardian, a primary source of screamingly-leftist fake news stories itself.  Of course it excoriates anyone pulling the curtain away from the leftist narrative that anything they say is objective and true while anything said against them is "fake news."

Maybe this has something to do with it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

The fight is on to see who will be the established purveyors of "fact".

The odd part is that Obama would sign a bill giving the incoming administration this sort of power (usurping it, actually, despite the First Amendment), and using tax dollars to 'counter' unappreciated narratives.

[The_Reader_David]

Of course before this there was xkcd's take on Snopes: