Did Tom Tomorrow "out" Snopes.com?

[anti_shrub]

Over at his blog at http://www.thismodernworld.com he was discussing the story about bin Laden family members being whisked out of the US right after 9/11 during the travel ban. He specifically talked about how Snopes originally declared it false and then took the opportunity to make snide comments about Michael Moore's motives since he mentioned it during an interview.

Now details are coming out that Moore wasn't so crazy after all and Snopes updated its entry to "kinda sorta" instead of flat out false.

What's telling is how the Snopes story went from ending like this:

"Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they've an axe to grind, however, and in Moore's case his axe is "the dastardly Republicans and how they're responsible for every ill ever visited upon the USA." In this case, inventing a bin Laden jet that secretly flew out of the country while the rest of us were barred from the skies, and peopling it with folks who were spirited out of the FBI's grasp by a U.S. president intent upon paying back some unnamed (but darkly hinted at) favor, is a handy way of reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans as callous and greedy politicians whose paramount values involve money, not people."


To this in the updated version:

"This page should be read for what it is: an analysis of some of the commonly-circulated claims about a complex issue (many of which are factually correct or misleading), not a denial of the larger arc of the story. Clearly bin Laden family members were indeed allowed to leave the U.S., with government approval and assistance, shortly after the September 11 attacks (an event which was reported in major newspapers within days of its occurrence), but issues such as whether the decision to let them leave was appropriate are subjective political issues outside the scope of this page."



I think Tom summed it up best.


"See, when Michael says it, he's a crazy truth-distorting axe-grinder. But when much of what he said turns out to be true, suddenly it's 'subjective political issues outside of the scope of this page.'"


I never looked at Snopes from a political point of view, but it sure seems like they got caught in some Republican style ass-covering.

Your thoughts?

[Nlighten1]

1. Not to defend but...

you can't always be right...

[anti_shrub]

3. No you can't

but the way Snopes originally had it posted was defending Republicans aginst the "stereotype" of not caring about people.

Perhaps the author had his own axe to grind viz. Michael Moore.

[disgruntella]

5. definitely

Someone at Snopes decided that anything that came out of Moore's mouth was Bee Ess. Of course Moore isn't non-partisan but that doesn't mean he's a liar (Republicans do that sooo much better)

I'm glad they corrected their page, but it would be classier if they'd apologize to Moore IMO.

[gratuitous]

4. Speak for yourself

As is well known, I am always right, at least 93.7% of the time. :hi:

However, Snopes should take their lumps just like everyone else when they pull a boner. Their current petulant conclusion just looks pissy.

[Lisa]

39. at least the late Ann Landers used to metaphorically ...

... slap herself with a wet noodle, when she was wrong.

I've noticed that someone at Snopes can't resist getting snide and moralistic -- probably several people write their analyses, but GWB's critics seem to be slapped harder than the anti-Clintonites. Compare some of the stories -- the one with Bush allegedly providing spiritual guidance to the young man, the one looking at whether the Marines were disrespecting Clinton, the "who cares what you think" comment by Bush in Philadelphia.

Too bad, because if one is trying for "fair and balanced", one should be snarky to everybody -- or hold off.

[Cocoa]

6. not to attack but...

Snopes' original version was not just "not right" it was WRONG. It actually went beyond wrong.

Snopes said Moore "invented" the plane. Snopes, who presents itself as an authority on things like this, shouldn't get a pass for saying something so untrue as that, so flatly.

[Pastiche423]

23. The 1st time I was aware of the bin Laden plane

was when I read it in the NYT very shortly after 9/11. When I was asked to supply a link to someone later, I found out it had been pulled.

THEN when I heard Michael tell Jon Stewert on the Daily show he had read it there too, I was relieved.

I no longer believe in snopes.

[Democat]

2. Many people have said that Snopes turned right after 9/11

It seems to be true.

Who will watch the watchers?

[Zhade]

31. More like...

Who will debunk the debunkers? ;)

[Cocoa]

33. we need a new word

"rebunking" maybe?

[ewagner]

34. Try Spinsanity n/t

[Must_B_Free]

7. I've always heard that Snopes is CIA

anyone else hear that?

[ButterflyBlood]

8. lol

that'd be one hell of a suprise

[disgruntella]

9. naw, debunked at www.snopes.com

(sorry, couldn't resist)

:dunce:

[frylock]

13. c . i . p . a . f . m . m.

cleaning india pale ale from my monitor!! THX!! :beer:

[ButterflyBlood]

10. Snopes has struck me as slightly left of center

they do defend Clinton most of the time after all. strikes me as an error, at least they fixed it.

[anti_shrub]

12. If it was just an error

I'd let them pass. It's the error combined with the attitude that Michael Moore is someone not to be believed with a splash of their foot stomping "outside the scope of this page" when it turns out that perhaps that no good Moore was maybe a little bit correct after all.

They've tackled plenty of topics re: politics and 9/11 so claming that this is outside of the scope of their site smacks of "I don't wanna play anymore".

[Cocoa]

17. they have to retract their original answer

A site like Snopes can't get away with scrubbing.

If they're going to do that, they should just avoid this kind of important stuff altogether, and just stick to the choking dobermman type of stuff.

They should also apologize to Michael Moore. They should have said that they couldn't confirm what he said, instead of saying he "invented" it.

[Logansquare]

20. I've used them to debunk right wing spam..

They keep on top of most of the right-wing email trash. However, I sent them research on the commonly evoked stories of Vietnam vets being spat upon. They got back to me with some vague answer about how this would take too long to verify, etc. I wondered why they just didn't include it as one of their impossible to prove/disprove urban legends? Maybe they feared a freep attack.

[Melsky]

11. I have often wondered if they are right wing

Nothing I can really put my finger on (hadn't read that particular thing about the Saudis). They were out and out wrong about that, and it has made me lose respect for them. Anyone know a good non right wing myth debunking site?

[robbedvoter]

14. I sent them the article this morning. They updated.

Good for Snopes. Tom Tomorrow can keep attacking Clinton (I looked at his comic book - bush&Clinton get equal time)- his comments are irrelevant.

[MisterP]

18. sez who?

[ButterflyBlood]

24. he didn't trash Clinton anywhere near as hard as Bush

it was kind of cynical, just pointing out Clinton had his flaws and wasn't perfect. Bush he rips into HARD.

[JackSwift]

15. Snopes is to the right

but in my opinion, not a far righty. I've always found that the left wing pundits are almost always right, and 100 percent ready to correct it when they are even slightly wrong. The right wingers usually intentionally distort the facts and since they are in the business of lying, they never correct errors because they think that will hurt their "reputation".

[ButterflyBlood]

19. how is it to the right?

they've rebuked just about every claim about how Clinton was really responsible for 9/11 or how he freed terrorists or how he's having people murdered. they've also rebuked that drug war propaganda about how drug dealers use hollowed out baby corpses to transport drugs, and mock idiotic right wing chain emails and that crap about how the girl prayed in a dangerous area and made it out and then another girl got raped.

[John_H]

16. Snopes tries to be fair but once in a while

a little right wing bias shows. I still like the site.

[Generic Other]

21. I wrote Snopes at the time and sent a link to a St. P. Florida newspaper

article. I also questioned Snopes certainty about the actions of a Bush administration that clearly was not being truthful to Americans.

Snopes sent me a really condescending and nasty response about his journalistic credentials and sources.

Guess he owes me an apology.

[Zhade]

22. Wait, wait, wait. Snopes, get your story straight!

In this case, inventing a bin Laden jet that secretly flew out of the country while the rest of us were barred from the skies, and peopling it with folks who were spirited out of the FBI's grasp by a U.S. president intent upon paying back some unnamed (but darkly hinted at) favor, is a handy way of reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans as callous and greedy politicians whose paramount values involve money, not people."

then

Clearly bin Laden family members were indeed allowed to leave the U.S., with government approval and assistance, shortly after the September 11 attacks (an event which was reported in major newspapers within days of its occurrence)...

I'm sorry, but how can Snopes say Moore "invented" the bin Laden flight and then state that major newspapers reported it within days of it happening? Was he asleep when the stories came out?

That's not logical. It seems rather clear who had the axe to grind in this case, and it wasn't Moore. Sorry, Snopes, you just blew your credibility.

[Generic Other]

25. At the time DUers even wrote the news reporter who broke the story

Ah Snopes. Someone dish up another plate of Freedom Crow over here, please.

[ramblin_dave]

27. Remember the "do you have blacks too" story

Here is the snopes account:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/brazil.htm

Do you detect a little bias here in the way snopes spins the story?

[Zhade]

30. And what's more...

The government of Brazil has this on record, on their official government website.

See http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/31_Blacks.html for the link.

[anti_shrub]

26. So I guess the consensus is

Someone clearly had an axe to grind against Michael Moore and his "invented" planes, and in the process damaged the credibility of the one site most of us go to when we need to debunk RW screed.

I know I'm going to think twice before believing their verdict on something.

[tinanator]

36. snopes is crap

they so desperately wanted to disprove the "Do you have blacks here?"
story about GW, and despite having no legs to stand on, did everything but say "liar liar pants on fire, GW is a good man, a GOOD MAN!" Especially when he made jokes about hanging MLK Jr at a portrait reception in the White House in front of Martin's family.
A good, racist, embarassing, closet case man!

[Democat]

41. They debunk Bush screw ups by saying they don't believe the reporters

If they don't like the truth, they try to debunk it with biased opinion.

Snopes appears to have turned into Bush defenders after 9/11.

[paulthompson]

28. Snopes sucks

There have been other threads about this article around DU. I've mentioned there that I tried to get Snopes to correct their page about this months ago, and several other DUers did as well. We all agreed that Snopes's response to such efforts to correct them was condesending and illogical.

For instance, I tried to get them to at least mention the existence of this article:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/tampatribune100501.html

which they refused to do (though I see that today they finally admitted it's existence in their latest update). That article back in October 2001 debunked their page on this topic, but they steadfastly ignored it's evidence until the New York Times article today made it impossible to keep doing so.

Bottom line: don't trust Snopes.

[MidwestTransplant]

29. I EMAILED SNOPES THE NYT STORY YESTERDAY

sure a bunch of others did too though!

[Kool Kitty]

32. Christopher Hitchens mentioned this

little "get 'em out of town quick" escapade in an article he wrote for VAnity Fair late in 2001, I don't remember the exact issue.

[REP]

35. Not a Defense

The Snopes people are husband and wife. The wife isn't particularly rightish, but anything on their site should be considered largely opinion. For a two-person operation, they do a fairly good job, but they aren't beyond bias.

[HFishbine]

37. Masters of the Obvious

From Snopes:

"claims... many of which are factually correct or misleading..."

Um, wouldn't that apply to any claim?

[Walt Starr]

38. As far as I'm concerned, Snopes cannot be considered reliable

They are a source for informaiton, however, I must have an independent corroborating source before I will ever again consider them accurate.

[sangha]

40. Let's start a rumour

about how snopes is run by the BFEE, and then wait for snopes to debunk it.

[dofus]

42. Snopes is very useful

to debunk virtually all of the right wing garbage that gets sent around in mass emailings. Somehow that does not smack of being a right wing site in my book.

Another source, for those of you who don't like snopes, is www.breakthechain.org