|
|
|
|
|
|
by soundwave106
3614 days ago
|
|
|
Here's the original article:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... I would say that "mostly false" is fine, based on the photo. This is based on the concluding statement: "Hilary is an advocate for rapists" etc. Now, we all know that defense attorney for rapists != advocate for rapists. Ethics Watch admitted as much. However, they seemed to leave out the conclusion, which really was the whole point of the photo. To me, the conclusion should be given much greater weight in driving the rating. Yes, the beginning of the photo is mostly true, but if the photo's post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacious conclusion is the real point, it doesn't matter. If I create a photo saying "Johnny listens to (insert current moral panic music here), Johnny grew up to be a criminal. Therefore, (moral panic music) makes you a criminal", that would be just as false... even if the first two statements are correct. |
|
|
Based on the meme, I would say "mostly true." I would take issue with "volunteered," I would question what she laughed about (it's unclear, and so not very fact-check-able), and I would ignore the "advocate for rapists, not women & children" bit as it doesn't seem to be a fact I can check. I would just say as much in my presentation of the facts.
Perhaps Snopes would have been better served by not wording the "claim" headline in a way that was expressly true, before then saying it was false.
They could have taken the meme line for line and rated them individually, as well. That happens anyway in the supporting detail, and it's an easy way to organize the page.