It depends on what is meant by truth. It appears that Snopes decided the that the "no flags at the DNC" was false, but the C-SPAN evidence show that at times there were no flags on display. The whole issue is politicized asshattery, but Snopes decided that since at times there were flags, the whole issue was false leading a reader to believe there were always flags on display.
Hat's off to Politifact for staying detached and reasonable, instead of partisan and pedantic.
> It appears that Snopes decided the that the "no flags at the DNC" was false, but the C-SPAN evidence show that at times there were no flags on display.
If there were flags on display at any point during the DNC, the claim of no flags at the DNC (including both forms which Snopes explicitly was addressing, that "flags were absent" from the convention or that "flags were banned" at the convention) is false. The claim that there were moments without flags at the DNC is a distinctly different claim, which is not false, but also not the claim that snopes was addressing.
Thing is, snopes and politifact debunk slightly different claims, but agree broadly on what happened. And it is not, that there is some "obviously right" claim^1 that needs debunking, but over a broad range of reasonable choices it is just the choice of the author which claim he wants to debunk.
^1 Actually there is, as many as there are readers.
Hat's off to Politifact for staying detached and reasonable, instead of partisan and pedantic.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/...
http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/