[Bartweiss]

Yes, their criticism of Snopes is misleading and dishonest.

There are several lengthy replies further down, but basically:

Ethics Alert quotes two small sections of a pages-long Snopes pieces, then acts like Snopes wrote nothing else. They claim that Snopes didn't answer the original question while hiding the actual image being analyzed (which Snopes addressed pretty directly). They draw specious conclusions (like equating a temporary 'not guilty' plea with calling the plaintiff a liar). They reveal facts already included by Snopes with the implication that they're unveiling a dirty secret, and without acknowledging that Snopes addressed those topics (in particular, the "Hillary laughed" bit).

They use quotes and facts, but their citations of Snopes are so selective, and use such fragile language breakdowns, that the content they're "responding" to has basically nothing in common with what was actually posted.

[mod]

I did not read the entire piece, but I think that you can read the snopes article without the related piece and see that they do not rate the claim (about Hillary defending a rapist) properly.

The claim, as stated, is true.

Snopes then goes on to defend the implications of the statement--implications that Snopes interprets.

I'm not sure an organization that deals in facts should be interpreting the tone/meaning/intended result of claims that it checks.

I would have liked Snopes to rate the claim true, and then provide details about the case. Readers can then decide for themselves how to think about those details.

Someone out there needs to deal strictly in facts and not the implications, greater meanings, or feelings related to those facts.

"Claim is true. X happened, Y happened, Z happened. Here are sources. Here's what people involved said."

[pwinnski]

I'm not sure how you can read the snopes article and believe that the claim is true.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...

What is "the claim, as stated," that you believe is true? If it's the page title, "Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist," that is not true, as detailed in the explanation. The man was convicted, not freed. If it's the image (which is clearly what Snopes is rating), I count eight statements, seven of which involve Hillary Clinton. The first three of those seven are false, the fourth is technically true with false implications based on one of the earlier falsehoods, and the fifth is debatable, depending on what what "it" means in that context. The final two are demonstrably false, inasmuch as they purport to be factual statements.

So seven statements, five of which are definitely false, and two of which are arguably true in misleading ways.

I'd say "MOSTLY FALSE" sounds about right. How would one word the claim to come up with "true?"

[mod]

The first line of the article is this:

"CLAIM: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case."

That was the claim I referenced.