Snopes

[Dos Equis]

Pretty funny.  Who is checking the fact checkers? 

Snopes.com Slams Babylon Bee Satirists as 'False' for Cosby-Planned Parenthood Joke
By Tim Graham | May 5, 2018
Our News Analysis Division has given this fact checker a rating of:
Deeply Distorted Deeply Distorted

The completely humorless fact-checkers at Snopes.com are trashing the satire site Babylon Bee again as “False.” The target is a hilarious send-up of Planned Parenthood claiming that only three percent of their services are abortions (about a third of a million deaths a year).

They offered this satirical Cecile Richards quote after Bill Cosby was convicted of sexual assault:

“Look, guys, let’s keep this in perspective,” she said in a press conference held at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices. “Cosby provided many needed services, like laughter, stand-up comedy, and a solid sitcom. You can’t paint him with the broad brush of ‘sexual offender’ just because a very small percentage of his activities were horrifying and abusive.”

The Snopes headline was:

Did Planned Parenthood Defend Bill Cosby?

Reports that the nonprofit organization defended the comedian after his felony sexual assault conviction stemmed from a Christian-themed satire site.

Snopes then explained:

The Babylon Bee is an entertainment web site with long history of publishing satirical articles. In this case, the web site appears to be spoofing an often-quoted statistic about the nonprofit organization; although many people may equate it with abortion, Planned Parenthood’s annual report states that these procedures only make up 3 percent of the medical services that they provide:

Then, for “facts,” Snopes helpfully provides a Planned Parenthood pie chart of their purported 2016 division of services. They failed to note that the Washington Post Fact Checker gave that statistic "Three Pinocchios."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/05/05/snopescom-slams-babylon-bee-satirists-false-cosby-joke

[Soul Crusher]

Snopes is such a sham and joke of a site.   

[Dos Equis]

Snopes Bizarrely Claims It's 'Unproven' Nathan Philllips Lied About Serving in Vietnam
By Tim Graham | January 26, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/01/26/snopes-bizarrely-claims-its-unproven-nathan-philllips-lied-about

[IroNat]

Snopes has been infiltrated with leftists.

A shame.

[Skeletor]

Snopes used to be a good resource 10, 15 or 20 years ago about urban legends (stories like the guy waking up in a bathtub and discovering his kidney was removed etc). But in recent years it seems to have a more pronounced political bias. I don't know if that's a conscious decision by the website owner or it's because of all the new contributors/staff. That's not to say everything it mentions is wrong but sometimes the wording or the way it is presented seems biased.

[Primemuscle]

Pretty funny.  Who is checking the fact checkers? 

Snopes.com Slams Babylon Bee Satirists as 'False' for Cosby-Planned Parenthood Joke
By Tim Graham | May 5, 2018
Our News Analysis Division has given this fact checker a rating of:
Deeply Distorted Deeply Distorted

The completely humorless fact-checkers at Snopes.com are trashing the satire site Babylon Bee again as “False.” The target is a hilarious send-up of Planned Parenthood claiming that only three percent of their services are abortions (about a third of a million deaths a year).

They offered this satirical Cecile Richards quote after Bill Cosby was convicted of sexual assault:

“Look, guys, let’s keep this in perspective,” she said in a press conference held at Planned Parenthood’s New York offices. “Cosby provided many needed services, like laughter, stand-up comedy, and a solid sitcom. You can’t paint him with the broad brush of ‘sexual offender’ just because a very small percentage of his activities were horrifying and abusive.”

The Snopes headline was:

Did Planned Parenthood Defend Bill Cosby?

Reports that the nonprofit organization defended the comedian after his felony sexual assault conviction stemmed from a Christian-themed satire site.

Snopes then explained:

The Babylon Bee is an entertainment web site with long history of publishing satirical articles. In this case, the web site appears to be spoofing an often-quoted statistic about the nonprofit organization; although many people may equate it with abortion, Planned Parenthood’s annual report states that these procedures only make up 3 percent of the medical services that they provide:

Then, for “facts,” Snopes helpfully provides a Planned Parenthood pie chart of their purported 2016 division of services. They failed to note that the Washington Post Fact Checker gave that statistic "Three Pinocchios."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/05/05/snopescom-slams-babylon-bee-satirists-false-cosby-joke

Or so says Tim Graham at News Busters, which is a publication with a strong conservative bias.

[Dos Equis]

Or so says Tim Graham at News Busters, which is a publication with a strong conservative bias.

He didn't just say it.  He proved it with their own links.  You didn't read the article. 

[chaos]

He didn't just say it.  He proved it with their own links.  You didn't read the article. 

He didn't read the article, he didn't watch the video of the injun trying to intimidate the teenager. He's not the type of guy that deals in facts that don't fit his liberal masters agenda.

[Primemuscle]

He didn't just say it.  He proved it with their own links.  You didn't read the article. 

It's already been established, you and I have a different concept of what proof is. And no, I didn't read his entire article, just like I don't read the Inquirer at the market checkout.

[Dos Equis]

It's already been established, you and I have a different concept of what proof is. And no, I didn't read his entire article, just like I don't read the Inquirer at the market checkout.

Then why the heck are you commenting about its accuracy??  You're making a fool of yourself.  You're smarter than that.

[SOMEPARTS]

It's already been established, you and I have a different concept of what proof is. And no, I didn't read his entire article, just like I don't read the Inquirer at the market checkout.

You could work for CNN or MSNBC right now. Helluva resume.

[Moontrane]

Snopes used to be a good resource 10, 15 or 20 years ago about urban legends (stories like the guy waking up in a bathtub and discovering his kidney was removed etc). But in recent years it seems to have a more pronounced political bias. I don't know if that's a conscious decision by the website owner or it's because of all the new contributors/staff. That's not to say everything it mentions is wrong but sometimes the wording or the way it is presented seems biased.

I remember when candidate Obama’s leased plane was painted, removing the American flag
that was originally there.  Snopes acknowledged it was true and could’ve left it at that, but
they posted a picture of McCain’s Straight Talk Express, showing no flag.  Thing is, the flag
was on the other side of McCain’s plane.   

[Dos Equis]

 

Snopes 'Fact-Checks' That Racist Attack on an LA Sheriff's Deputy
By Bonchie | May 06, 2021
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/05/06/snopes-fact-checks-that-racist-attack-on-an-la-sheriffs-deputy-n375360?fbclid=IwAR1SsqIcZiR5wvcV6pUIeeL_ELIJkXqqMalqUDLfp24URUY6q5AtNyq6JvQ

[OzmO]

Is there a good fact check site out there?

[Dos Equis]

Is there a good fact check site out there?

I don't trust any of them.  What I do is first consider the source then check multiple sites to try and get to the truth.  Not always easy. 

[Primemuscle]

Shows how very slight changes can alter the meaning of something. What RealState printed is not what Snopes wrote. When something is quoted, shouldn't it be accurate to the letter? Reminds me of the game telephone.

Here is what Snopes actually said:

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) told Snopes it was aware of viral footage supposedly showing a motorist calling a member of its department "a murderer" and telling him "you'll aways be a Mexican, you'll never be white." However, whether the video captured an authentic moment between a civilian and LASD deputy remained under investigation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sheriffs-deputy-authentic/

Here is what RedState printed:
They did so by making an absurd claim that the “authenticity of the footage remains under question.”


Here is what Jessica Lee posted on twitter about  Snopes and the video:

Conservative media are playing up this vid that supposedly shows a woman calling a LA Sheriff's Deputy "a murderer" & telling him "you'll aways be a Mexican, you'll never be white." But the authenticity of the footage remains under question.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/05/06/snopes-fact-checks-that-racist-attack-on-an-la-sheriffs-deputy-n375360?fbclid=IwAR1SsqIcZiR5wvcV6pUIeeL_ELIJkXqqMalqUDLfp24URUY6q5AtNyq6JvQ

[Dos Equis]

Shows how very slight changes can alter the meaning of something. What RealState printed is not what Snopes wrote. When something is quoted, shouldn't it be accurate to the letter?

Here is what Snopes actually said:

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) told Snopes it was aware of viral footage supposedly showing a motorist calling a member of its department "a murderer" and telling him "you'll aways be a Mexican, you'll never be white." However, whether the video captured an authentic moment between a civilian and LASD deputy remained under investigation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sheriffs-deputy-authentic/


Here is what Jessica Lee posted on twitter about  Snopes and the video:

Conservative media are playing up this vid that supposedly shows a woman calling a LA Sheriff's Deputy "a murderer" & telling him "you'll aways be a Mexican, you'll never be white. "But the authenticity of the footage remains under question."

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/05/06/snopes-fact-checks-that-racist-attack-on-an-la-sheriffs-deputy-n375360?fbclid=IwAR1SsqIcZiR5wvcV6pUIeeL_ELIJkXqqMalqUDLfp24URUY6q5AtNyq6JvQ

Um, that's the same thing.  And you're missing the point:  they are refusing to confirm the fact that this lady went on a psychotic racist rant claiming the video might not be authentic, solely because it doesn't fit within their twisted social justice world view.  You should watch the video of the incident then see if you have any doubt in your mind over whether it is authentic.  It's only about 2 minutes long.   

[ThisisOverload]

The site used to be fairly accurate, but now it's extremely biased.

They find a single word in every article to change the context and render it "false", when in reality it's a true statement. Then they flip to the other side if it's a Liberal article, it's wild.

I don't remember the exact article, but it was about 2 years ago there was an article criticizing Obama's foreign policy in the middle east. The article was claimed to be false, because the author stated this occurrence happened 3 times Iran, when it fact it had happened 4 times (3 times in Iran), making it actually worse. So if you weren't smart enough to realize that, you would think the entire article was false, but in fact the article was completely truthful. The occurrence happened 3 times in the country mentioned in the article and 1 time in another country. It was deemed false due to this discrepancy.

So the entire article got discredited.

[Primemuscle]

Um, that's the same thing.  And you're missing the point:  they are refusing to confirm the fact that this lady went on a psychotic racist rant claiming the video might not be authentic, solely because it doesn't fit within their twisted social justice world view.  You should watch the video of the incident then see if you have any doubt in your mind over whether it is authentic.  It's only about 2 minutes long.   

Technically it is not the same thing. The word "footage" suggests the whole video is in question while Snopes wrote "moment" which suggests a clip. A clip is more like 30 sec or less and was probably originally part of a larger video.

You mean your opinion is that it is solely because it doesn't fit within their twisted social justice world view. The incident was and still is "under investigation" which is why Snopes wrote "unproven." If Snopes were to come to a conclusion based on their opinion of the content of the video, that would be errant on their part.

I watched the video. It seems authentic, but my opinion isn't "proof" that it is. I just checked and apparently the incident is still under investigation. I have no idea what their investigating, do you? The woman's a jerk for saying and acting the way she did. She deserves the citation. She has to pay the fine . End of story.

My question is, why doesn't the LAPD provide bodycams? Cops shouldn't have to get them at their own expense. They should also be required to wear a bodycam when they are on duty.

As an aside, I think anyone using their cell phone while driving deserves a citation.....an maybe even have the phone confiscated. In California penalties for mobile phone use while driving are considered an infraction punishable with a $20 fine for a first offense, and $50 fine for each subsequent offense. Furthermore you will have to pay fines for penalty assessment which can increase your total fine to $60 – $150. (the penalty should be greater, IMO).

[Dos Equis]

Technically it is not the same thing. The word "footage" suggests the whole video is in question while Snopes wrote "moment" which suggests a clip. A clip is more like 30 sec or less and was probably originally part of a larger video.

You mean your opinion is that it is solely because it doesn't fit within their twisted social justice world view. The incident was and still is "under investigation" which is why Snopes wrote "unproven." If Snopes were to come to a conclusion based on their opinion of the content of the video, that would be errant on their part.

I watched the video. It seems authentic, but my opinion isn't "proof" that it is. I just checked and apparently the incident is still under investigation. I have no idea what their investigating, do you? The woman's a jerk for saying and acting the way she did. She deserves the citation. She has to pay the fine . End of story.

My question is, why doesn't the LAPD provide bodycams? Cops shouldn't have to get them at their own expense. They should also be required to wear a bodycam when they are on duty.

As an aside, I think anyone using their cell phone while driving deserves a citation.....an maybe even have the phone confiscated. In California penalties for mobile phone use while driving are considered an infraction punishable with a $20 fine for a first offense, and $50 fine for each subsequent offense. Furthermore you will have to pay fines for penalty assessment which can increase your total fine to $60 – $150. (the penalty should be greater, IMO).

You quoted this part from snopes:  "whether the video captured an authentic moment between a civilian and LASD deputy remained under investigation."

"Authentic moment" refers to the entire video. 

I think they are investigating the woman's complaint that she was harassed.  Pretty clear she was not.  And she should have gotten a ticket for driving without her license.   

I really feel bad for her kid.  What a horrible parent and terrible life lesson she taught him. 

[Primemuscle]

You quoted this part from snopes:  "whether the video captured an authentic moment between a civilian and LASD deputy remained under investigation."

"Authentic moment" refers to the entire video. 

I think they are investigating the woman's complaint that she was harassed.  Pretty clear she was not.  And she should have gotten a ticket for driving without her license.   

I really feel bad for her kid.  What a horrible parent and terrible life lesson she taught him.

Clearly I am not a videographer, so I am not going to argue with you about the nuanced differences in defining the term (moment) as related to video because it subjective as is the literal definition of moment, which is:

1. a very brief period of time.

2. importance (formal)

I didn't catch that she was also driving without a license. Wonder if she just didn't have it with her or if she actually was an unlicensed driver. Unlicensed driver's are typically arrested and their vehicle is impounded.

Clearly she wasn't harassed, if anything she was the harasser. The cop seemed to keep his cool. I cannot imagine saying the shit she did to a cop during a traffic stop or during any other official police business.