| Let us be 'fair and balanced' now. Don't let it be said that we don't send around another view! Someone DID check with Truth or Fiction and they actually CONDEMN this "eRumor". Smells like some slanting somewhere. Oh, but I must be a rabid right-wing whacko!
Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic Party to promote Barack Obama- Fiction! | |
Summary of the eRumor:
An eRumor about Snopes.com accusing them being owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. | | The Truth:
In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was "in the tank" for presidential candidate Barack Obama. As with many forwarded emails, the criticism did not include any example of what the writer of the email claimed was the difference between what Snopes.com reported and what Barack Obama had actually said.
Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.
We can give a unique perspective on this story because we do the same kind of work as Snopes.com and have sometimes been the target of similar criticism.
We've got a collection of emails that have come to TruthOrFiction.com accusing us of being "right wing whackos" as well as "liberals" and "communists." We've been suspected of being owned and operated by both Republicans and Democrats. We've been called "Christian propagandists" as well as "atheists pretending to be neutral." We occasionally receive emails that have elaborate theories about who "really" owns us and what our "real" motives are.
The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don't like the truth you've reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did.
That, in our view, is what is happening with Snopes.
The 2008 presidential campaign has been one of the most intense and unique in our nation's history and has prompted more political eRumors than any presidential campaign in our experience, especially about Barack Obama. These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him.
One of the versions of the eRumor mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we've had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.
updated 10/21/08 |
Dee
Subject: Fwd: From Reinhardt - Re: SNOPES EXPOSED
To: drrohe@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 2:07 PM
From: rreinhardt@mail.com
To: Gjmcintosh1@aol.com
Sent: 7/21/2010 2:02:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: From Reinhardt - Re: SNOPES EXPOSED
From Rich Reinhardt Your article said truthorfiction.com is more reliable: Thanks, Mary! I've often noticed the 'slant'. Oh, but wait, I haven't checked this with Snopes, yet. 
Dee
From: Gordon W--
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Sun, Apr 25, 2010 8:45 pm
Subject: SNOPES EXPOSED
I always wondered how snopes knew whether anything was true or false. G
SNOPES EXPOSED
>
> For the past few years Snopes (http://www.snopescom/) has positioned itself,
> or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment,
> claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly
> was behind snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> . Only recently did Wikipedia get
> to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well,
> finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
> office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
> mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in
> the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago
> and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.
> After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and
> neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions
> -- who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
> The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com
> claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in
> fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons
> were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various
> issues.
> A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
> political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
> Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue
> before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed
> the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the
> sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally
> contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want
> to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
> numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at
> State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about
> it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from
> snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
> Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue
> as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
> Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are very Democrat (party) and
> extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election,
> liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be
> conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with
> people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their
> website findings. Gee, what a shock?
> get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take
> what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to
> their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
> Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now
> seems apparent that's all the Mikkelsons do. After all, I can personally
> vouch from my own experience for their not fully looking into things.
> So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to
> http://http/www.wikipedia.org/ or http://http/www.snopes.com/
> I have found this to be true also: Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on
> Snopes said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have
> suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only
> caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an
> immediate full left rudder.
>
> Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.
> http://www.truthorfiction.com/
> I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and
> this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on
> their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the
> video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and
> should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles
> truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes
> anymore.
> A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me aboutSnopes.com
> <; . A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do
> a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself
> that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for
> fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as
> well. Many people still thinkSnopes.com <; is
> neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is
> aware that that is a hoax in itself.
>
> T
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> | |
|
Posts
What in the world? From Gina Suzanne at - 5 hours ago Microchipping the population is not a theory, it's a plan. The Obama...
No comments:
Post a Comment