Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have read

[Phys251]

Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have read

Snopes has been reviewed several times since this article was written in 2017. Their rating has changed to reflect changes in our methodology. They are

mediabiasfactcheck.com

When Snopes makes a ruling, there's a good chance they're telling the truth.

 

[Taylor]

Did Ashley Biden Call Childhood Showers with Her Father 'Probably Inappropriate' in Leaked Diary?

"I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online," Ashley Biden wrote to a district court judge.

www.snopes.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have read

Snopes has been reviewed several times since this article was written in 2017. Their rating has changed to reflect changes in our methodology. They are

mediabiasfactcheck.com

When Snopes makes a ruling, there's a good chance they're telling the truth.

Did Ashley Biden Call Childhood Showers with Her Father 'Probably Inappropriate' in Leaked Diary?

"I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online," Ashley Biden wrote to a district court judge.

www.snopes.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't think this is going the way you thought

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have read

Snopes has been reviewed several times since this article was written in 2017. Their rating has changed to reflect changes in our methodology. They are

mediabiasfactcheck.com

When Snopes makes a ruling, there's a good chance they're telling the truth.

I don't use fact checking sites that often, but I always thought Snopes was reputable. They usually give reasons they make a ruling, and I think I remember them making a correction if needed. Will continue to use them.

 

[LouC]

I don't use fact checking sites that often,

I do. A lot. In cross referencing topics, and in source linking through them.

but I always thought Snopes was reputable.

I am good with them as a place to look.
I can't really remember when if ever I have used them as a source in my posting here?

They usually give reasons they make a ruling,

Yes, and I like that.

and I think I remember them making a correction if needed.

Yes, they will do that if need be.

Will continue to use them.

As needed, same here.

 

[Daisy]

Overall, we rate Snopes as Left-Center biased based on news story selection that slightly favors a liberal perspective. We also rate them as High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing for fact checks and for abiding by the guidelines of the IFCN.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snop...sed,for abiding by the guidelines of the IFCN.

 

[eman623]

MBFC's scoring system is as follows:
Do the headlines contain emotionally charged words?
Are the articles well sourced?
So they select an equal mix of right and left claims to check?
Are the staff politically biased?

But they don't score the most important aspect of a fact checking site!

Are the conclusions politically neutral?

Snopes is in fact a lefty site and they often conclude their claims in ways that are biased against the right and skewed in favor of leftists.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I remember some 15 to 20 years ago Snopes lied to cover up for the UN when the UN tried to create an international gun ban treaty. Ever since then I've never fully trusted them.

 

[devildavid]

I remember some 15 to 20 years ago Snopes lied to cover up for the UN when the UN tried to create an international gun ban treaty. Ever since then I've never fully trusted them.

They did not lie. No such treaty was factually ever attempted by the UN. You have fallen for right lies, not any lie from Snopes.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533

 

[Toggle Almendro]

They did not lie.

They did.

No such treaty was factually ever attempted by the UN.

That is incorrect. The UN was quite upset when we torpedoed their efforts. The embittered whining was delicious.

You have fallen for right lies, not any lie from Snopes.

That is incorrect. I do not fall for lies.

 

[devildavid]

They did.



That is incorrect. The UN was quite upset when we torpedoed their efforts. The embittered whining was delicious.



That is incorrect. I do not fall for lies.

It is not correct that such a treaty was ever proposed, let alone put in place. You are falling for lies because you want to believe them due to your overreaction to anything concerning guns. It factually never happened.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It is not correct that such a treaty was ever proposed, let alone put in place.

That depends on what you mean by "proposed".

They were talking about it. They were planning to make it the law of the world.

John Bolton told them that if they tried to do such a thing, the United States would never be part of the treaty. So instead of proposing it, they whined bitterly about how mean we were.

You are falling for lies because you want to believe them due to your overreaction to anything concerning guns.

That is incorrect. I don't fall for lies.

It factually never happened.

It did happen. I was around then. I remember it.

 

[devildavid]

That depends on what you mean by "proposed".

They were talking about it. They were planning to make it the law of the world.

John Bolton told them that if they tried to do such a thing, the United States would never be part of the treaty. So instead of proposing it, they whined bitterly about how mean we were.



That is incorrect. I don't fall for lies.



It did happen. I was around then. I remember it.

There was never a UN proposed law to ban guns universally…ever. It never happened. You thought it did, and you were wrong due to your obsession with guns. You fell for something of your own imaginative making that never factually happened. The only lie is the one you told yourself.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

There was never a UN proposed law to ban guns universally…ever.

That depends on what you mean by "proposed".

They were talking about it. They were planning to make it the law of the world.

John Bolton told them that if they tried to do such a thing, the United States would never be part of the treaty. So instead of proposing it, they whined bitterly about how mean we were.

It never happened.

Except, it did.

Here was John Bolton's speech telling them that the US would not be a part of their scheme:

G1894 - UN July 2001 Conference, US Statement by John Bolton

GRIP, centre de recherche et d'information sur le désarmement, le commerce des armes, la prévention des conflits et l?économie européenne de la défense. GRIP is a Belgian independant organization for the research and information on geostrategic issues and international relations. GRIP mainly...

web.archive.org

John R. Bolton: Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001

John R. Bolton: Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001

web.archive.org

You thought it did, and you were wrong due to your obsession with guns.

No, I was right. The UN was actively talking about coming up with a gun ban treaty.

John Bolton told them that they'd be doing it without the US.

Here is a quote from his excellent speech:
"We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms. We request that Section II, para 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms such as Section II, paras 7 and 10 be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities."

You fell for something of your own imaginative making that never factually happened. The only lie is the one you told yourself.

That is incorrect. The UN actually tried to do it.

And Snopes actively lied to cover it up.

 

[devildavid]

That depends on what you mean by "proposed".

They were talking about it. They were planning to make it the law of the world.

John Bolton told them that if they tried to do such a thing, the United States would never be part of the treaty. So instead of proposing it, they whined bitterly about how mean we were.



Except, it did.

Here was John Bolton's speech telling them that the US would not be a part of their scheme:

G1894 - UN July 2001 Conference, US Statement by John Bolton

GRIP, centre de recherche et d'information sur le désarmement, le commerce des armes, la prévention des conflits et l?économie européenne de la défense. GRIP is a Belgian independant organization for the research and information on geostrategic issues and international relations. GRIP mainly...

web.archive.org

John R. Bolton: Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001

John R. Bolton: Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001

web.archive.org

No, I was right. The UN was actively talking about coming up with a gun ban treaty.

John Bolton told them that they'd be doing it without the US.

Here is a quote from his excellent speech:
"We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms. We request that Section II, para 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms such as Section II, paras 7 and 10 be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities."



That is incorrect. The UN actually tried to do it.

And Snopes actively lied to cover it up.

None of this ever factually happened. The UN never tried to do what you claim. John Bolton overreacted to their actual proposal, just as you have. Snopes did not lie about it. There was never a gun ban treaty coming from the UN.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

None of this ever factually happened.

Yes it did. Those links are archives of UN links.

And here's another link:

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/rm/janjuly/4038.htm

The UN never tried to do what you claim.

Yes they did. I was around back then.

John Bolton overreacted to their actual proposal, just as you have.

No overreaction. Outlawing guns is unacceptable.

Snopes did not lie about it.

That is incorrect. Snopes lied to cover it up.

There was never a gun ban treaty coming from the UN.

That depends. Treaties are not imposed by the UN. They are adopted by member nations. But the UN was pushing for a gun ban treaty to be developed.

John Bolton just told them no.

 

[devildavid]

Yes it did. Those links are archives of UN links.

And here's another link:

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/rm/janjuly/4038.htm

Yes they did. I was around back then.



No overreaction. Outlawing guns is unacceptable.



That is incorrect. Snopes lied to cover it up.



That depends. Treaties are not imposed by the UN. They are adopted by member nations. But the UN was pushing for a gun ban treaty to be developed.

John Bolton just told them no.

Your link is to the words of John Bolton, not to the actual UN proposal. You have provided no evidence of the actual proposal, just Bolton’s overreaction to it. The UN didn’t propose outlawing all guns universally.
Snopes didn’t lie.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have read

Snopes has been reviewed several times since this article was written in 2017. Their rating has changed to reflect changes in our methodology. They are

mediabiasfactcheck.com

When Snopes makes a ruling, there's a good chance they're telling the truth.

I guess that makes Democrats big nosed Pinocchios.

No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

However, the accuracy of what Trump did claim – that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the 2017 Unite the Right debacle – is in question.

www.snopes.com

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Your link is to the words of John Bolton, not to the actual UN proposal. You have provided no evidence of the actual proposal,

Showing our official government response to a proposal is pretty solid evidence that the proposal existed.

But in any case, here was their actual proposal:
https://web.archive.org/web/2003050....org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf (PDF)
https://web.archive.org/web/20010913102132/un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf (PDF)

Section 2 Paragraph 20:
"To seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes."

Section 2 Paragraph 7:
"To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons within their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities."

Section 2 Paragraph 10:
"To put in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the transfer of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates, and enhanced legal and enforcement measures."

And here is a small sample of the whining that followed after John Bolton ruined their evil plot:

United States Weakens Outcome of UN Small Arms and Light Weapons | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

just Bolton’s overreaction to it.

Telling the UN that we will not be part of such a treaty is not an overreaction. An overreaction would be dropping a tactical nuke on the UN building.

The UN didn’t propose outlawing all guns universally.

The UN proposed outlawing civilian ownership of "military weapons" which is a pretty vague term that can be construed to mean pretty much any weapons.

We see that very term misused today to justify attempts to outlaw ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15.

The UN also proposed an expansive gun registration regime that would be far more intrusive than our current system.

Snopes didn’t lie.

Snopes characterizes the treaty with the changes that John Bolton forced on it as if that was the only thing that the UN tried to do. Snopes covers up the fact that the UN tried to do much worse, but were stopped from doing so.

 

[HonestJoe]

Are the conclusions politically neutral?

The truth isn't politically neutral. If ten people from one side make false statements and only two from the other side do, they're not going to report it as six lies from either side. If you support the side with the ten people, you might perceive it as being biased but the problem there wouldn't be the fact-checker.

 

[devildavid]

Showing our official government response to a proposal is pretty solid evidence that the proposal existed.

But in any case, here was their actual proposal:
https://web.archive.org/web/2003050....org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf (PDF)
https://web.archive.org/web/20010913102132/un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf (PDF)

Section 2 Paragraph 20:
"To seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes."

Section 2 Paragraph 7:
"To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons within their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities."

Section 2 Paragraph 10:
"To put in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the transfer of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates, and enhanced legal and enforcement measures."

And here is a small sample of the whining that followed after John Bolton ruined their evil plot:

United States Weakens Outcome of UN Small Arms and Light Weapons | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

Telling the UN that we will not be part of such a treaty is not an overreaction. An overreaction would be dropping a tactical nuke on the UN building.



The UN proposed outlawing civilian ownership of "military weapons" which is a pretty vague term that can be construed to mean pretty much any weapons.

We see that very term misused today to justify attempts to outlaw ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15.

The UN also proposed an expansive gun registration regime that would be far more intrusive than our current system.



Snopes characterizes the treaty with the changes that John Bolton forced on it as if that was the only thing that the UN tried to do. Snopes covers up the fact that the UN tried to do much worse, but were stopped from doing so.

There was never any UN proposal for the universal banning of weapons. There was no evil plot. Bolton forced nothing on it at all. He overreacted and so did you. Snopes didn’t lie about the original proposal. Your own research verified this. Thank you.

 

[Oxnard]

I don't use fact checking sites that often, but I always thought Snopes was reputable. They usually give reasons they make a ruling, and I think I remember them making a correction if needed. Will continue to use them.

Fact-checking sites like Snopes make beans by accurately fact-check news. Much (not all) of the ALT-RIGHT news proves sketchy; at worst uses equivocal language with intent to deceive and/or shameless propaganda. Hard left & right do tend to spin. That is where the human brain comes in to differentiate between fact and meadow muffins.

Left/right bias/spin all same. Human brain has discernment for fact & spin.
Did Dems send pipe bombs to themselves -- Jews with space lasers – Birds replaced by CIA drones, Hillary's child porn pizza, Clorox - ivermectin - vaccines are ‘a plan of Satan, 'Birds replaced by CIA drones,’ ?

Some claim bias, whine 'poor me', left/right picks on me. Everybody, catch your breath then, please do point out the errors in our credible fact checkers Snopes, Poynter, politifact etc..... I would suggest we might find some data arguable, little if any patently false.

Do good things get good press, do bad things get bad press.

I do trust the MSM for diversity dissimilitude & professionalism.


Let's look at the "FCC fairness doctrine"

en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

 

[Airyaman]

Did Ashley Biden Call Childhood Showers with Her Father 'Probably Inappropriate' in Leaked Diary?

"I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online," Ashley Biden wrote to a district court judge.

www.snopes.com

So you agree with the OP?

 

[beefheart]

Did Ashley Biden Call Childhood Showers with Her Father 'Probably Inappropriate' in Leaked Diary?

"I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online," Ashley Biden wrote to a district court judge.

www.snopes.com

You think way too much about dumb baloney like that.