In alt.folklore.urban Brian Gordon <bri...@panix.com
[Non-AFU groups blasted; I mean, c'mon]
> I lost faith in Snopes a few years back. The Democrat National Convention had
> no US flags on stage on day 1. I watched part of it live and there were no
> flags visible. When Snopes was asked why they were missing, the answer was
> that they were NOT missing and an image was shown as proof. The image, however,
> was of the stage on day 2 - I watched that, too. Months later, that had still
> not been retracted or corrected, and I had to downgrade my opinion of Snopes.
The bias is there, certainly. For example, if you check Snopes for
"Rittenhouse" today (topicality alert) you'll find a bunch of news
stories (why Snopes feels it's necessary for them to report the
news and not stick to ULs is beyond me) and some debunking of minor
claims, but nothing at all about the lies that were reported and
repeated about Rittenhouse himself or his motives.
This is a shame, because there are some questions outstanding. I
originally went there not so I could make a point here, but rather
to check on something I'd seen on social media: that the property
he went to Kenosha to protect was owned by his grandparents. I
still don't know if that's a credible claim or not.
What it means in the larger equation is that Snopes is not the
one-stop shopping it once was. However incomplete their offering
is, however, they still do good work and I'll still check them
first for most questionable claims I see out in the wild.