|
|
|
|
|
|
by mod
3614 days ago
|
|
|
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." |
|
|
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?"