2. This article ignores the executive editor's registrations as a Republican and Independent, and doesn't provide any examples of biased Snopes content.
3. This is a nearly fact-free article. The author seems shocked that Snopes doesn't hire unbiased people, but such people don't exist.
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-benghazi-msnbc/
Good points, this quote was taken out of context.
> http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Good points, Trump was registered as a Democrat in 2001. Old registrations aren't a great predictor of current views.
> http://www.snopes.com/is-facebook-censoring-conservative-new...
Pretty fair, there is no primary source evidence either way, so the article concludes with "Unproven". This was not "opinion-heavy" or "mocking".
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/
Very fair, the claim was wrong on both counts.
2. This article ignores the executive editor's registrations as a Republican and Independent, and doesn't provide any examples of biased Snopes content.
3. This is a nearly fact-free article. The author seems shocked that Snopes doesn't hire unbiased people, but such people don't exist.
4. This article does not mention Snopes.