Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Like others have stated, I'd like some examples of this. I was first introduced to Snopes by a conservative coworker of mine. From everything I've seen of the site, they're pretty good at trying to be neutral.



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.


1. This has some examples of articles the author feels are biased.

> 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.


Wait, you're complaining about the bias of a site and your first two references are tucker carlson's site?


I didn't complain about anything, I provided links when someone asked why Snopes is perceived as liberally biased. I get why that's confusing for you though. That's why I included the 3rd link, which addresses, and confirms, the points discussed there from a source that's more palatable to the left.

It's pretty funny really, your comment is indicative of what people perceive as bias. If Carlson's site is somehow off limits for discussion, does that mean that editorials by Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika, Anderson Cooper, etc, are all worthless due to their bias? Or are only right wing sources ok to completely write off?


And this is why Trump won. And I'm the one to admit I voted for Obama twice before.


Eh whatever, the way they act is neutering the left for years to come and they don't even see it. It's pretty funny to watch at this point. Don't worry 2018 will be great!!! Referendum!!!


You're honestly going to confirm bias by not changing the frame of reference? Man, you better not hope to be a lawyer in this lifetime with that mindset




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: