Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
Thanks Tree28Thanks

Thread: Fake News

  1. #31
    SPOCK! Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,155
    Thanks
    9058

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    Bottom line it's not a reliable source.
    Can you show me even one example of where Snopes was wrong or deliberately mislead their readers? Because thus far, the only thing I've ever heard my right-wing compadres do, is to dismiss Snopes out of hand due to the fact that it shoots holes in many of the Right's favorite polishing rags.

    Lol "Snopes!" Yup, that's about all I ever get in response.
    Last edited by Puzzling Evidence; 27th December 2016 at 03:57 PM.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,615
    Thanks
    6756

    From
    midwest
    Latest "fake news" making real news this morning:

    Brittney Spears died in an accident.

    Got some people to believe it, like many fake news reports do.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26,615
    Thanks
    6756

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Uh...no. No, none of those do "count", as they are all examples of things that actually happened. Although your biased slant on the events is noted. However, none of that has anything to do with made up "news".

    When you have some response beyond red herrings, I'm sure will all be interested to read it.
    Your opinion is incorrect.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member John T Ford's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    28,888
    Thanks
    7576

    From
    Great State of Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    Can you show me even one example of where Snopes was wrong or deliberately mislead their reader? Because thus far, the only thing I've ever heard my right-wing compadres do, is to dismiss Snopes out of hand due to the fact that it shoots holes in many of the Right's favorite polishing rags.

    Lol "Snopes!" Yup, that's about all I ever get in response.
    Fact Check: Snopes Is Liberal As Hell | The Daily Caller

    https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/...ead-to-me-now/

    Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised - Your News Wire
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  5. #35
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7,084
    Thanks
    5610

    From
    Florida
    I can do the same thing, but with reputable sources.

    Snopes.com - FactCheck.org

    The e-mail goes on: “Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal,” adding: “There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.” The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions.
    We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, “My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate.”
    “You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,” David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.
    Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, “We apply the same debunking standards to both sides.”
    Hiding in Plain Sight
    The e-mail also accuses the Mikkelsons of “hiding” their identities. “Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it,” the message claims. That’s nonsense. It may well be that the author of this e-mail was ignorant of the Mikkelsons until recently, but it’s never been a secret who is behind Snopes.com.
    We even dug up a reference to David Mikkelson from 1995, a year when the Internet was in its infancy. A collection of short items under the headline “A Special Report: The Virtual Valley” in the Los Angeles Times included a photo of him. Reporter David Brady wrote: “Meet David Mikkelson, above. Known in cyberspace as “snopes,” the Agoura Hills resident spends much of his time debunking urban legends via the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban.” The Mikkelsons were hardly holed up in an undisclosed location, even then.
    David says the couple has done “hundreds” of media interviews over the years. Some of the major national pieces are listed on the site, including a new (April 2009) Reader’s Digest feature on them.
    Lift That Bale!
    Another claim in the e-mail: That the Mikkelsons have been criticized for “not really investigating and getting to the bottom of various issues.” The message gives no examples, but there’s plenty of evidence that the couple expends a great deal of effort to find the truth. Take, for example, “Easily Lead,” Barbara Mikkelson’s attempt to ascertain whether lipstick contains dangerous levels of lead, as one chain e-mail claimed. Mikkelson had an extensive conversation with a federal Food and Drug Administration compliance officer, conducted her own experiments rubbing various metals across lipstick and wax smears on white paper, dug up a number of articles about and industry memos on lead in lipstick, and sifted through medical literature on the topic. The list of sources at the end of the article doesn’t come close to doing justice to the amount of work that went into it. (Bottom line: Lipstick is safe, at least in the U.S.).
    For another piece, “Chubby Bunny Death,” the Mikkelsons verified that a child had indeed died while playing a game that entails stuffing as many marshmallows as possible into one’s mouth and trying to say the words “chubby bunny.” However, they dispelled the notion that the death occurred because the marshmallows had “emulsified,” forming a sticky liquid that choked the child and was difficult to extract in time to save her. Instead, it was a case of marshmallows blocking her air passages. The Mikkelsons knew that because they reviewed a number of articles about a lawsuit that resulted from the incident. But they also conducted their own experiment, David Mikkelson told us in an interview, in which he held marshmallows in his mouth to determine how long it takes them to dissolve. Now that’s research.
    And no account of the lengths to which the Mikkelsons will go to chase down the facts would be complete without a mention of “Crash Course,” their shredding of the rumor (repeated in Time magazine and elsewhere) that Clark Gable had run over and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk one night in 1945, and that his studio, MGM, paid an employee to take the rap for him. The Mikkelsons checked four biographies and other books, which had conflicting accounts, and a number of old newspaper articles (all on microfilm) to sort out the truth, which was that Gable did have a car wreck, but he never hit a pedestrian. Their account of the extensive research process is worth a read.
    Although our sites have somewhat different emphases – we focus on what’s being said in political ads, speeches, interviews and debates, while Snopes.com concentrates more on such things as whether former Monkee band member Michael Nesmith’s mother was the inventor of liquid correction fluid (she was) – Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson’s work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented. We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.
    Go away. You're a broken record.

  6. #36
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,958
    Thanks
    2633

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Of course not. There are no reliable fact checkers, right?
    Correct. All of these vetting sites have bias, imo. Do your own fact checking. It takes longer, but o well; whiners like you have to whine.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    No, it is exactly to the subject at hand, the MSM was publishing fake polls, fake stories and more as fact... trump just had a way to get the media to expose themselves as fake news just as they call everyone not pushing their dogma as fake news... but, the numbers show it, the MSM is hemorrhaging viewership because nobody really trusts them anymore, for exactly the reasons I cited.

    You expose yourself lying enough tines people stop trusting you even when you tell the truth.
    @Czernobog, take note ^
    Last edited by Ginger; 27th December 2016 at 05:46 AM.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  7. #37
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    Correct. All of these vetting sites have bias, imo. Do your own fact checking. It takes longer, but o well; whiners like you have to whine.
    And how do you propose doing that independent fact checking? When a story reports that "A source close to Clinton" said "blah, blah, blah," you are going to "fact check" that how, precisely? You are going to track that source down, and verify the quote how, precisely? Or do you just assume that if it comes from a conservative sounding "news" source, then it is accurate?

    For instance, let's take this out of the hypothetical, and deal with this current "story":

    A former senior law enforcement official has confirmed that the FBI instructed their New York field office to continue its corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation post Trump victory.

    Now, go ahead, and "fact check" this story for us. And please include your sources that you use to verify the story. Because frankly, I think you're full of shit. I think this "sounds" reasonable to you, so you just assume it's true.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 27th December 2016 at 06:59 AM.

  8. #38
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,958
    Thanks
    2633

    From
    USA
    That's your problem. Deal with it.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
    That's your problem. Deal with it.
    Translation: "You're right. I am full of shit, so I'm just going to be snarky now, and pretend that I'm smarter than you..."

  10. #40
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,958
    Thanks
    2633

    From
    USA
    I do a lot of research. I don't always get it right, but I do try. What's your excuse, laziness?
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 9th December 2016, 11:56 AM
  2. CNN Fake News
    By Meursault in forum Current Events
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 9th December 2016, 08:58 AM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 7th December 2016, 06:40 AM
  4. Fox Producer- they know it is fake news
    By teamosil in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 14th November 2012, 12:31 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed