Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by doctorless on Monday July 24, 2017 @08:40PM
(#14844089)
It's a little bit of both, honestly. They have definitely taken a strong political position as of late, which has resulted in instances where they've ignored legitimate sources that agreed with the rumor they are trying to dispel, and allowed sources suffering from "citogenesis"-like qualities because it agreed with their views. I look forward to a future snopes-like site which is completely impartial, but unfortunately impartiality is very difficult to exhibit when the subject matter is frequently very subjective.
Dylan Roof was treated to Burger King. Snopes seized on the wording "taken to" Burger King, and give it the big red X.
Not mostly false, not mixed, but entirely false. That's all most people will ever see. They won't read down the page. Confirmation bias has been confirmed at that point.
Roof was given body armor, Burger King, and additional guards. Freddie Grey wasn't so lucky. That was the original point of the article Snopes wouldn't link to.
Snopes is that guy on a message board who thinks he won the argument by being a grammar Nazi. That's what people who don't like Snopes find infuriating.
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by tzs on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @05:35AM
(#14846380)
You seem to think that "taken to" vs. "brought food from" is a minor or insignificant difference.
It is not.
People in custody must be provided with food and water. If a suspect is being held somewhere where food is not readily available on the premises, it is normal and expected that someone will be sent out to get food.
What is not normal is to take the suspect out to get food.
The headline of the article at The Source says he was "taken to" Burger King. As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. It's that headline that gets spread through tweets and social media.
Even if people do read down the page at The Source, they won't get the mistaken impression that Roof was taken to Burger King dispelled, because further in they say he "was treated to a meal at Burger King".
They also say he "was arrested, strapped with a protective bulletproof vest, then treated to burgers and fries", which gives the impression that that he was taken to the food (hence the need for the vest), rather than the food being brought to him.
Maybe The Source did not intend to mislead, but in fact they did, as can be seen by looking at other articles and social media reports that repeated the "taken to" Burger King narrative, which mostly seem to trace back to The Source article.
I think you also may be misunderstanding the scope of Snopes' "false" rating. They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. They are specifically addressing whether or not Roof was taken to Burger King, because that's what was being spread via multiple other outlets and on social media. That is what they are saying is "false". And they are right.
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by zimpenfish on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @11:58AM
(#14848748)
I might be missing something but isn't “Police Chief Says Dylann Roof Was Taken to Burger King Shortly After Arrest.” wholly false? Where's the element of truth?
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by tzs on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:43PM
(#14849265)
Snopes ratings are on the truth of the specific claims they are investigating, not on the truth of every claim in the source that contains the specific claims they are rating.
The claim being reviewed in this particular case is that Roof as taken to Burger King by the police. That claim is false, and so "False" is the correct rating for Snopes to give.
That the article also has other claims, and that some or all of them may be true, is irrelevant. A false claim does not get upgraded to mixed just because some different claims in the same source are not false.
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by tzs on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @05:52AM
(#14846451)
The question Snopes was answering: "Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003". Snopes says this is false.
The video you linked is an excerpt from a Trump interview where he mostly waffles on whether we should attack Iraq. The closest he comes to opposing the war is saying that perhaps we shouldn't do it yet and perhaps should wait for the UN.
In what universe is that "strong" opposition?
Strong is perhaps a fuzzy term, but the context is Trump making claims like this one during one of the GOP debates: "I’m the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.’ Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong".
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by jack9 on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @02:17PM
(#14850380)
Factually, his opposition to Iraq was not publicly strong prior to 2003. As is classic for Trump, in 20015 he claims the opposite, despite his purposeful equivocation. This is a strategy he employs to cover all his bases whenever possible.
Snopes gave their own interpretation of the facts and intent as context, rather than the factual details which lined up ("mostly true" in other matters). I like the idea of an impartial fact checking body, but this partisan bend has gotten worse over time. Factcheck is at least able to recognize that much of the "fake news" is about misinterpretation, rather than the easily abused double-plus-good simplification that Snopes adopted for the ignorant masses (I can only assume). YMMV
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by ThrustVectoring on Monday July 24, 2017 @06:23PM
(#14843298)
They're getting attacked from both sides, too. The authoritative this-is-how-things-are voice is extraordinarily tempting to influence through agenda pushing. See: Wikipedia's Gamergate controversy article.
Re:Snopes is in danger of closing its doors due to a busines...
by andriesm on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:43AM
(#14846178)
I am happy to see them die. How can you claim to be an independent fact checker when you are this dishonest. Politifact equally biased and sometimes outright lying.
I don't see it, but it could be that I am in a bit of a bubble, so I ask in the hope of checking that.
http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/
Dylan Roof was treated to Burger King. Snopes seized on the wording "taken to" Burger King, and give it the big red X.
Not mostly false, not mixed, but entirely false. That's all most people will ever see. They won't read down the page. Confirmation bias has been confirmed at that point.
Roof was given body armor, Burger King, and additional guards. Freddie Grey wasn't so lucky. That was the original point of the article Snopes wouldn't link to.
http://thesource.com/2015/06/21/police-chief-says-dylann-roo...
Snopes is that guy on a message board who thinks he won the argument by being a grammar Nazi. That's what people who don't like Snopes find infuriating.
It is not.
People in custody must be provided with food and water. If a suspect is being held somewhere where food is not readily available on the premises, it is normal and expected that someone will be sent out to get food.
What is not normal is to take the suspect out to get food.
The headline of the article at The Source says he was "taken to" Burger King. As you yourself noted, most people don't read down the page. It's that headline that gets spread through tweets and social media.
Even if people do read down the page at The Source, they won't get the mistaken impression that Roof was taken to Burger King dispelled, because further in they say he "was treated to a meal at Burger King".
They also say he "was arrested, strapped with a protective bulletproof vest, then treated to burgers and fries", which gives the impression that that he was taken to the food (hence the need for the vest), rather than the food being brought to him.
Maybe The Source did not intend to mislead, but in fact they did, as can be seen by looking at other articles and social media reports that repeated the "taken to" Burger King narrative, which mostly seem to trace back to The Source article.
I think you also may be misunderstanding the scope of Snopes' "false" rating. They are not saying everything in The Source story is false. They are specifically addressing whether or not Roof was taken to Burger King, because that's what was being spread via multiple other outlets and on social media. That is what they are saying is "false". And they are right.
"They did it first" isn't a defense. If I slapped my sibling and told mother "They did it first" I still earned punishment.
What you're defending isn't defensible. Snopes clearly lied by using the false rating here.
>They are not saying everything in The Source story is false.
Yes, in fact, they are:
http://www.snopes.com/ratings/
"This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false."
The Roof situation is best described by their Mixture rating. Snopes specifically chose the false rating despite elements of truth to this story.
Dylan Roof was fed by police shortly after arrest: True
Dylan Roof was fed fast food by police shortly after arrest: True
Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest: True
Dylan Roof was fed Burger King fast food by police shortly after arrest at Burger King: False
He wasn't taken to Burger King.
The claim being reviewed in this particular case is that Roof as taken to Burger King by the police. That claim is false, and so "False" is the correct rating for Snopes to give.
That the article also has other claims, and that some or all of them may be true, is irrelevant. A false claim does not get upgraded to mixed just because some different claims in the same source are not false.
vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8
The video you linked is an excerpt from a Trump interview where he mostly waffles on whether we should attack Iraq. The closest he comes to opposing the war is saying that perhaps we shouldn't do it yet and perhaps should wait for the UN.
In what universe is that "strong" opposition?
Strong is perhaps a fuzzy term, but the context is Trump making claims like this one during one of the GOP debates: "I’m the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.’ Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong".
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Snopes gave their own interpretation of the facts and intent as context, rather than the factual details which lined up ("mostly true" in other matters). I like the idea of an impartial fact checking body, but this partisan bend has gotten worse over time. Factcheck is at least able to recognize that much of the "fake news" is about misinterpretation, rather than the easily abused double-plus-good simplification that Snopes adopted for the ignorant masses (I can only assume). YMMV
This is spectacularly bad timing considering how many of our institutions that trade in truth are being attacked.
http://archiveteam.org
http://gotnews.com/boom-wesearchr-mike-cernovich-release-800...