Snopes.com

[Blayde Starrfyre]

I enjoy Snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference page, but some times I feel there is a right-wing bias there. Maybe I'm crazy. Check out the page below and the articles "Cindy Sheehan," "Shoe Stopper," and "I'll care if . . ." and tell me if you see what I see.

[whistle]

1. Link?

[NYC Liberal]

2. Link

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/war.asp

[MisterP]

3. they reiterate neocon points (Guantanamo people will kill us all!)

and disabled caching of their site after they attacked Michael Moore for daring to mention the Saudis being flown out and erased the blast (and later gave a tattered apology)
breakthechain often has disputations of the fascist e-mail that always appears in inboxes

[VOX]

4. Funny, the freepers think that it has a left-wing bias...

It apparently doesn't say enough bad things about Jane Fonda. I kid you not, I recently read this on a blog.

Guess these things are all subjective. :crazy:

[Iris]

5. They defend the mayor and governor of LA:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/nagin.asp

[Canuckistanian]

11. I like that! A simple refutation of the lies.

With a timeline and everything.

[Taxloss]

6. No, it's neutral.

It can't help it if the right-wing generates more lies than the left; they are very appreciative if you add information to debunking efforts, so if they print something you know not to be true, give them proof it isn't. It's a good site and I don't know why people here are trying to attack it.

[Catch22Dem]

7. I've never thought so. Look at this one!!!!

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/disaster.asp

I've been going to snopes for about 5 years I guess. I've never found them to be biased. Seems they just present facts and leave the opinions to others.

[crispini]

8. I don't get your problem with the Sheehan article?

do you have direct links for the rest?

[rosesaylavee]

9. I am not picking up bias.

The piece about Cindy reads fine to me - can you pick out sentences or phrases you think are slanted?

[Blayde Starrfyre]

13. Bias

My issue with the Sheehan article was the claim that the lies were somehow a result of a "mistake," rather than rightists deliberately trying to discredit Sheehan and trying to make the media look left-biased.

[rinsd]

10. Where is the right wing bias?

The only Sheehan article I found debunked a lie about her.

The shoe stopper thing they basically said was unconfirmed. It appeared in a gossip column so that's understandable.

And lastly the "I'll care if" debunked the fact that the polemic was written by a serving soldier's relative as opposed to a right wing hack.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

14. The bias there

The Sheehan article defended the writer of that lie as someone who had made a mistake, not a liar.

The Shoe article ignored the fact that Condi was a beneficiary of all Bush's tax cuts that crippled FEMA and infrastructure like the levees, and despite that would rather spend an unnecessary amount of money on shoes than the victims.

The "I'll care if" article ignored a bunch of lies in the actual article they are discussing. Newsweek's reports were largely confirmed. Who cares how the Saudis treat Christians, they are Bush's buddies, that doesn't justify Iraq. And he's talking about the "special food" prisoners get - what, you mean "not pork?"

[ellenfl]

15. they may not want to be sued. eom

[rinsd]

16. You see what you want to see (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

12. Snopes is absolutely unbiased

and VERY reliable. I remember them debunking several Clinton legends.

[Berry Cool]

17. Snopes sticks to the facts about a specific issue

and ONLY the facts. They don't get political. They tell you the facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

If it's reported that Condi shopped for $3,000 Ferragamo shoes in New York while New Orleans drowned, and that a fellow shopper rebuked her and that she had the shopper removed, they will try to find out whether this is true or not. Is there evidence that she did this? Who are the sources? Can we find out whether she really did buy $3,000 shoes, or were they $2,000 shoes? Or did she just window shop? Was she really chewed out by another shopper? If so, did she really have that shopper removed?

That way, if you find out that some of the information is flawed but some is not, you can determine for yourself how you feel about those facts. Maybe you don't care whether the shoes cost $3,000 or $2,000. Or whether another shopper reamed her out. Maybe if all that was true is that she shopped for shoes in New York, you'd still find her behavior outrageous. But that's up to you. Unlike Faux News, they really DO present the facts and let you decide. And when they cannot be sure of the facts, they say so.

One thing snopes is NOT going to do is drag in anything irrelevant to the issue. Their interest is in finding out whether specific information is true or not. FEMA has nothing to do with whether or not Condi was shopping for shoes on a given day in a given place, so they're not going to bring that in.

They are equally willing to expose all sorts of sources of flawed information as having agendas to push, and using misinformation to push it. They do not just do it for one side of the political fence. Their dedication is to the truth...whatever it is.

If you expect them only to expose the lies of the right...or to say "Hey, people on the left may have been wrong about this fact, but it doesn't matter anyway because their opinions are right," you are going to be disappointed.

[Zynx]

18. They list the names of the myths. And debunk the RW smears