Snopes got Snoped! Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.
Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when Snopes was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.
In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.
But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.
What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.
So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.
Do you dispute the facts and sources posted on snopes.com? Or do you not like their conclusions? Or do you just not like the messenger?
The article cited (and you, for posting it) left out my favorite accusation from the original (2008) e-mail version of this tract: The Mikkelsons are not only "very Democratic" (provably false) but are also "Jewish."
It is interesting that the snopes.com page on the Gregg affair cites no fewer than 11 primary sources.
Do you dispute the facts and sources posted on snopes.com? Or do you not like their conclusions? Or do you just not like the messenger?
The article cited (and you, for posting it) left out my favorite accusation from the original (2008) e-mail version of this tract: The Mikkelsons are not only "very Democratic" (provably false) but are also "Jewish."
It is interesting that the snopes.com page on the Gregg affair cites no fewer than 11 primary sources.
Did you read your own link? There is no mention in the "factcheck.org" link of the word "Jewish" anywhere! Or did you just add that yourself?
And the article admits that Mr. Gregg was not called and it does stated that State Farm requested the sign be taken down because of the content, which is inaccurate. It simply didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy against endorsing candidates.
Also, you failed to mention this:
"The e-mail’s last paragraph advises that everyone who goes to Snopes.com for "the bottom line facts" should "proceed with caution." We think that’s terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org. The very reason we list our sources (as does Snopes.com) and provide links is so that readers can check things out for themselves.
Oh, we almost forgot: That Wikipedia entry mentioned in the e-mail? Not only was it not the first place to reveal the Mikkelsons’ identities, but it contains several factual errors, according to David. For instance, it says that he works "part-time" on Snopes.com. That was never true, according to David; early on he did hold another job as well, but even that hasn’t been true since 2002. The mistakes could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," he said."
In short, Snopes is an unreliable source....you disagree?
The article cited ... left out my favorite accusation from the original (2008) e-mail version of this tract: The Mikkelsons are not only "very Democratic" (provably false) but are also "Jewish."
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: ... And the article ... stated that State Farm requested the sign be taken down because of the content, which is inaccurate. It simply didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy against endorsing candidates.
Reading comprehension time: "The content" of the sign is what "didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy." See the snopes.com page for pictures of the sign in question. It was State Farm's policy and State Farm's decision.
quote
In short, Snopes is an unreliable source....you disagree?
I disagree. I find snopes.com to be acceptably reliable ... certainly more reliable than most secondary sources on the Internet. They cite primary sources, usually multiple sources. They acknowledge uncertainties and ambiguities. When an error is identified, they usually acknowledge the error and correct it promptly. When an item is contested but upheld as correct, they post that too.
Now you can answer the questions I originally posed and you dodged:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Do you dispute the facts and sources posted on snopes.com? Or do you not like their conclusions? Or do you just not like the messenger?
... or are you going to pull an Avengador1 and say, "I just posted that to see what people thought about it. I don't endorse it"
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-07-2013).]
ANYONE can post anything they want on this great internet. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Snopes is just another entity on the web you have to decide whether or not to believe too. I personally don't take their (Snopes) final say as gospel by any means.
Reading comprehension time: As I stated earlier, the "Jewish" accusation was included in the original e-mail I received in 2008, an e-mail that was widely circulated around the conservative echosphere at the time. The "article" you cited conveniently omitted that embarrassing fact.
Reading Comprehension time...What "fact"?
Just because you say it's true doesn't make it true. Your own links failed to mention it. Show your proof or shut up.
quote
Reading comprehension time: "The content" of the sign is what "didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy." See the snopes.com page for pictures of the sign in question. It was State Farm's policy and State Farm's decision.
Uhh, No. AGAIN, read the section you just quoted from your own links. According to State Farm they requested the sign be removed because of a policy against endorsing candidates. They even point to similar signs removed that endorsed other candidates. Comprendo? It is a company policy.
quote
I disagree. I find snopes.com to be acceptably reliable ...
LOL...even though your own link at Factcheck.org says you are a fool for doing so??
Have you been into fierobear's supply of virtual courage? No matter ... I'm not intimidated by your bullying and bluster, either.
None of your righteous posturing can invalidate it my own personal experience. I stated that in 2008 I received an e-mail that, in addition to the virtually identical excerpt you posted, accused the Mikkelsons of being "Jewish." That is a fact*.
quote
...even though your own link at Factcheck.org says you are a fool for doing so??
Reading comprehension time: It says no such thing. However I do agree with what it actually says:
"We think ['proceed with caution' is] terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org."
Or, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."
*Edit: For the record, here is the verbatim text of the unsgned e-mail I received from a conservative acquaintance in 2008. Only the To: and From: fields have been edited for privacy. I repudiate all of its spurious allegations:
quote
From: Xxxx Xxxxx [xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:15 AM To: Xxxx Xxxxx Subject: Who knows what to believe anymore? snopes.com
Who knows what to believe anymore? snopes.com
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms- is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottomof this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
A Google search reports ~3200 instances of the awkwardly-worded phrase "... it has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish ..." posted around the Internet, so you don't just have to take my word for it. Q.E.D.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-07-2013).]
Note to self: If not winning an argument bring up someone you also don't get along with that has nothing to do with current conversation, and compare the person your losing to to them.
Note to self: If not winning an argument bring up someone you also don't get along with that has nothing to do with current conversation, and compare the person your losing to to them.
I think I got this, Brad
Yup.
What respect I had for Marvin just dropped several points.
... bring up someone you also don't get along with that has nothing to do with current conversation ...
You raise a legitimate point. I might even feel bad about it if I hadn't previously been on the receiving end, as in this recent thread; I just chose to ignore it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
What respect I had for Marvin just dropped several points.
Funny ... I didn't notice even the slightest ripple in the fabric of the universe.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-07-2013).]
It is amazing to me that a legitimate thread about the failure of Snopes to accurately investigate facts (which can NOT be argued and yet somehow IS) can degrade into a mire of personal BS in just 17 posts. Gotta be a record.
It is amazing to me that a legitimate thread about the failure of Snopes to accurately investigate facts (which can NOT be argued and yet somehow IS) can degrade into a mire of personal BS in just 17 posts. Gotta be a record.
Something that happens this regularly, especially when you're a common denominator, amazes you? It's funny how I almost never see you posting in other sections, or at least don't notice when you do. In here you act like a schoolyard bully, throwing insults and talking about how superior you are to anyone who disagrees with you. Strangely enough anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a liberal and it turns political. I'd gladly have a conversation or even debate with either Boonie or Marvin in real life, as I feel it would be enjoyable. You? I feel the same experience with you would leave me with a feeling that I need multiple showers.
It is amazing to me that a legitimate thread about the failure of Snopes to accurately investigate facts (which can NOT be argued and yet somehow IS) can degrade into a mire of personal BS in just 17 posts. Gotta be a record.
Not surprising at all. That is what the people that we fight against DO when they have no logical argument. They just lash out. Very typical of liberals.
Not surprising at all. That is what the people that we fight against DO when they have no logical argument. They just lash out. Very typical of liberals.
Given the difference between our comprehension levels, I can imagine you would think my words somehow make your words more valid. I can assure you that my comment, if read correctly, would not serve for your purposes.
You can post all the cute and trite pictures you want. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
Are you ok? You preach on trite, then post "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything". You're fighting with yourself.....
I can also help you with that tired old "stand for nothing" trick you and others here pull out as some kind of backwards last-ditch defense when cornered by your own words, as that false concept has been put to rest once and for all in another thread:
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Oh, and P.S. Just to end that silly notion that I don't stand for or defend anything, this should squash that; I will NEVER let anyone tell me who I am. That should end that.
Note to self: If not winning an argument bring up someone you also don't get along with that has nothing to do with current conversation, and compare the person your losing to to them.
I think I got this, Brad
Marvin was losing to you?
He posts this:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Reading comprehension time: "The content" of the sign is what "didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy." See the snopes.com page for pictures of the sign in question. It was State Farm's policy and State Farm's decision.
and Toddster responds with:
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Uhh, No. AGAIN, read the section you just quoted from your own links. According to State Farm they requested the sign be removed because of a policy against endorsing candidates. They even point to similar signs removed that endorsed other candidates. Comprendo? It is a company policy.
I'm wasn't sure what the argument was anymore at that point...
And the article ... does stated [sic] that State Farm requested the sign be taken down because of the content, which is inaccurate. It simply didn't meet State Farm's corporate policy against endorsing candidates.
"Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg's sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm's corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns."
"Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg's sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm's corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns."
Disclaimer: I've been a State Farm customer for many, many years. I'm switching, but not because of their politics, because of high rates and poor service. Now, about endorsing political candidates, One reliable source says that State Farm gave $1,816,475 to candidates last year: $20,701 to Barack Obama $18, 401 to Mitt Romney.
They gave MUCH more $$ to the Republican party than the Democratic party. For those who can't understand figures, or pie charts, that means: $1 ,213,231 to Republicans, vs $424,262 to Democrats.
So I guess they DO endorse candidates, parties, and issues. They just like to keep it quiet, and not post signs on agencies. Thats just good business practice.
Edited to add: Since this thread, like many others by the OP, is probably headed to the trash can, I have to ask: Knowing his character, WHY do you bother to respond to someone like him?
------------------ Drive safely!
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-07-2013).]
Disclaimer: I've been a State Farm customer for many, many years. I'm switching, but not because of their politics, because of high rates and poor service. Now, about endorsing political candidates, State Farm gave $1,816,475 to candidates last year: $20,701 to Barack Obama $18, 401 to Mitt Romney.
They gave MUCH more $$ to the Republican party than the Democratic party.
$300 is considered "much more" to Republicans? Oh, wait, that must be that Neptune liberal math.
You picked a poor example. You should have gone with the percentages.
Lol
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-07-2013).]
Fierobear, you may consider reading the next sentence Neptune posted:
quote
They gave MUCH more $$ to the Republican party than the Democratic party. For those who can't understand figures, or pie charts, that means: $1 ,213,231 to Republicans, vs $424,262 to Democrats.
You've really lost your mind.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 01-07-2013).]
Knowing [Toddster's] character, WHY do you bother to respond to someone like him?
Are you suggesting that even Toddster's most egregious falsehoods ... in this case a political tract that was discredited four years ago ... should go unchallenged?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Aren't you in academia?
No.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-07-2013).]
It is amazing to me that a legitimate thread about the failure of Snopes to accurately investigate facts (which can NOT be argued and yet somehow IS) can degrade into a mire of personal BS in just 17 posts. Gotta be a record.
Told ya this would end up in the trash can. Where it belonged from the very beginning.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-07-2013).]
