News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com. Parent comment

Re:Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com by PhasmaFelis on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @11:30AM (#21515360)
Snopes also had to debunk an Onion article headlined "Mike Pence Disappointed God Has Never Asked Him To Kill One Of Own Children".

It only looks like they're being partisan if you cherry-pick your articles.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com by beerandt on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @12:48PM (#21516183)
Articles like this do not make them neutral. They only make them look neutral.

It's the equivalent of claiming to have a black friend as proof you're not racist.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com by dev_dull on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @04:49PM (#21518541)
Here's a "partisan" topic: "Have Democrats Tried to Impeach Every GOP President Since Ike?"[1]

According to their site it's 5 out of 6 presidents, or roughly 80%. Their rating: mostly false. Looks mostly true to me.

1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-president...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com by PhasmaFelis on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @12:55PM (#21516261)
> Articles like this do not make them neutral. They are only designed to make them look neutral.

Are you asserting, then, that the stories about left-wing idiots are true, but the ones about right-wing idiots are false? I'm honestly curious. Are all of the linked Twitter accounts secret false-flag trolls?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com by beerandt on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:01PM (#21516349)
Not at all... Just that there's a great deal of nuance that goes into many of these Snopes articles that is designed to flip the question so that it might be answered in a favorable way.

Just covering an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean it's covered in a neutral way.

[ Parent | on HN ]