| 1. Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi... 2. Snopes, Which Will Be Fact-Checking For Facebook, Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-... 3. The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai... 4. Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/s... Oh HN, downvoting what was asked for. This is why nobody likes talking to you about politics and you think your minority opinions are the majority. >One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter. - What I Heard From Trump Supporters, sama. > The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements. |
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-benghazi-msnbc/
Good points, this quote was taken out of context.
> http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Good points, Trump was registered as a Democrat in 2001. Old registrations aren't a great predictor of current views.
> http://www.snopes.com/is-facebook-censoring-conservative-new...
Pretty fair, there is no primary source evidence either way, so the article concludes with "Unproven". This was not "opinion-heavy" or "mocking".
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-armani-jacket/
Very fair, the claim was wrong on both counts.
2. This article ignores the executive editor's registrations as a Republican and Independent, and doesn't provide any examples of biased Snopes content.
3. This is a nearly fact-free article. The author seems shocked that Snopes doesn't hire unbiased people, but such people don't exist.
4. This article does not mention Snopes.