about snopes

[Bgchuby01]

Who watches the watchers?

For the past few years www.snopescom <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.


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 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 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 Mikkelson's are very Democratic (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?


So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think
to be the bottom line facts...'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 Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my
own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com


I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify
on Snopes and they 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 www.truthorfiction.com <http://www.truthorfiction.com/> a better
source for verification, in my opinion.


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 Youtube 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 about Snopes.com
http://snopes.com// <http://snopes.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 think Snopes.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.





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.71/2331 - Release Date: 08/28/09
06:26:00



--

 

[Ratickle]

Weird, Searched Truth or Fiction to check on this Snopes report. They say it's false, and even mention themselves as part of the falsehood......:sifone:



http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

 

[Bgchuby01]

I am just posting an email that came to me

 

[clayinaustin]

I am just posting an email that came to me

Then you should be banned for forwarding this SPAM on our forum!

How dare you "just post an email that came thru"!
Maybe you should check your "facts" before posting them.

Leave and NEVER RETURN!

 

[Ratickle]

Actually it makes a very good point.

People all over receive emails that look official and forward them where they become urban myths.

That is exactly how Obama got elected. His organization used the internet very well to spread lies and rumors with no substantiation and asked for money at the same time.

Having places like Snopes and truthorfiction are good things out there for review of facts. Getting people to take the time to do it, a lot harder.

 

[fund razor]

As long as Wikipedia got to the bottom of it.

 

[Ratickle]

As long as Wikipedia got to the bottom of it.

That's kinda funny it would be quoted in the story. It's what made me check for accuracy in the first place.....

 

[fund razor]

That is exactly how Obama got elected. His organization used the internet very well to spread lies and rumors with no substantiation and asked for money at the same time.

In a different thread, at a different time... I have info that I can share on that issue. Fund raising people have studied it extensively.

 

[Ratickle]

In a different thread, at a different time... I have info that I can share on that issue. Fund raising people have studied it extensively.

I'll definitely be waiting for that one......

 

[VtSteve]

Actually it makes a very good point.

People all over receive emails that look official and forward them where they become urban myths.

That is exactly how Obama got elected. His organization used the internet very well to spread lies and rumors with no substantiation and asked for money at the same time.

Having places like Snopes and truthorfiction are good things out there for review of facts. Getting people to take the time to do it, a lot harder.

Both sides have used the email spam extensively this entire decade. Just this year alone has been a tragic dumbing down of every computer display in the country. I just think that there are real issues and policies to debate. The lies and email fabrications have indeed become as much a news source as anything else. I'm on both lists, and many RNC and local R lists as well. I had to tell them to just Stop.

The one that started this thread is a great example. Unfortunately, it does work. In 2004 it was sick. Last year it made me puke.

 

[cigdaze]

I am just posting an email that came to me

Then it must be true...

:sifone:

 

[jayboat]

That is exactly how Obama got elected. His organization used the internet very well to spread lies and rumors with no substantiation and asked for money at the same time.

I'm really starting to wonder about you. :ack2: Did you hit your head on the roof of the batboat?

While I partially agree with the first statement- the Obama campaign embraced new technology and used it perfectly to their great advantage... political campaigns, especially those at the national level, will never be the same thanks to the innovations by them. (You left out the part about dubya and mcmaverick - you know, those eight years of bliss we enjoyed under repub genius and all that brilliant campaign strategery.)

As far as the 'lies and rumors' part... well, there is where I gots a little problem. No politician is perfect, in fact, the truth is often the exact opposite. Same with campaign methodology- the argument could be made that political campaigns are mostly based on lies and rumors. The Obama campaign may have stretched the truth in some instances, but compared to the outright fabrications of the repubs throughout the campaign, in retrospect it seems very, very minor.

I'll definitely be waiting for that one......

Yeah, me too. :ack2:

 

[Ted]

First of all the snopes people have never made a secret of just being a husband and wife team. That said they do have a definite leftward lean. They are very quick to call a bad thing about a Dem (esp. Barry O) "FALSE" while putting out a lot of "Partially Trues" and "Maybes" when it is something about Reps (Esp George B) . As for "Lies and Rumours", the far left and far right are battling for our souls and our cash. The parties simply want our cash. Both parties have learned that to put the really damaging but likely wacky or false stuff out there they can use the fringe groups and the blogs to get the points out, while having deniability. And these groups have used the e-mail lists to the max. It is a shame that is where political discourse is right now, and why so many people can really give 2 sh!ts about what is going on, until it is time to vote (last week before the election) or it hits them directly in their face or wallet, like now. And that dynamic is making it si we always have a choice between the lesser of two evils rather than between two intelligent, well informed statesman.

 

[Ratickle]

I'm really starting to wonder about you. :ack2: Did you hit your head on the roof of the batboat?

Many times, but I had a helmet on.:sifone:

 

[Ratickle]

Would you at least say they both used the internet, (bloggers, etc.), to spread inuendos and outright lies and raise money.

But the dems did it better??????

Or maybe you received your $1000 check we were all promised?

 

[Andrew]

While I partially agree with the first statement- the Obama campaign embraced new technology and used it perfectly to their great advantage... political campaigns, especially those at the national level, will never be the same thanks to the innovations by them. ......

As far as the 'lies and rumors' part... well, there is where I gots a little problem. No politician is perfect, in fact, the truth is often the exact opposite. Same with campaign methodology- the argument could be made that political campaigns are mostly based on lies and rumors. The Obama campaign may have stretched the truth in some instances, but compared to the outright fabrications of the repubs throughout the campaign, in retrospect it seems very, very minor.

I agree with most of what you state except for your last sentence. I believe both parties equally base their campaigns on "lies and rumors", the Obama campaign used the internet to gets their "lies and rumors" out more effectively.

 

[Wobble]

I am just posting an email that came to me

wiki entries can be put up by anyone and they stay until challenged.

I have often checked the sources quoted by snopes and find them to be accurate and if anything they err on the side of the rumor.

People that spend their time trying to win their weak arguments by quoting lies and exaggerations have got to be hating Snopes and others like them.:sifone:

 

[phragle]

you guys should really get a clue and look beyond tunnelvision.

1. Snopes is a website, there is no requirement that a website be fair, factual or unbiased. A website is created for one or more of three purposes, A. carry the message/views of the entity. B. To make money. C. pure entertainment.

2. Spring semester I did a 75 page research paper on the 3rd presidential debate. BOTH candidates did an exemplury job of not answering questions, stretching truths and creating complete fabrications.

3. Obama didn't set out to use the internet to win the election. One of his primary targets was the young 20 something voter. To reach your target audience most effectively you use the form of media used most by your target for maximum exposure and you convey the message in a form they can understand and relate to. If the target audeince only got there information from the inside printing of candy wrappers, you would never have gotten election spam, but you would have gotten more Snickers bars that you could ever possibly eat. It's not a conspiracy, it's BASIC MARKETING.

 

[TCEd]

"1. Snopes is a website, there is no requirement that a website be fair, factual or unbiased. A website is created for one or more of three purposes, A. carry the message/views of the entity. B. To make money. C. pure entertainment"

BINGO, BANGO !!!!!!!!
Although people rip newspaper writers and editors they have the requirement to get multiple sources prior to submitting an article. Obviously some fail/cheat but I'd still trust what I read in a newspaper long before TV, radio,internet talking heads.
ed

 

[Wrinkleface]

2. Spring semester I did a 75 page research paper on the 3rd presidential debate. BOTH candidates did an exemplury job of not answering questions, stretching truths and creating complete fabrications.

did U verify that w/ Snopes???????????????:leaving: