Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official Snopes Thread***Liar, Liar Pants on Fire (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter HellToupee
- Start date
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Rod Stewart was married to Gomer Pyle.
identikit
Footballguy
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
According to Snopes this isn’t true https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jim-nabors-rock-hudson-marriage/
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Ollie North tried to warn congress about Obama.
identikit
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
After the Au Bar incident that really embarrassed Ted he seemed to turned his later years around
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
One time I was in an elevator with Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy. They both had white dogs on leashes. They both yelled “down, whitey”. I thought they were talking to me and I fell to the floor.
Also, I was addicted to heroin and in that little room under my stairs alone.
Also, I was addicted to heroin and in that little room under my stairs alone.
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
The Babylon Bee v. Snopes
Fact-Checking Satire -- Is Snopes Serious?
Humor website the Babylon Bee is like The Onion for the politically conservative and evangelical Christian set. That is, it offers satirical articles written in the style of a legitimate news outlet. Recent headlines include “Futuristic, Utopian Paradise of Baltimore Completely Baffled By Trump’s Attacks,” “Alyssa Milano’s Political Activism Prompts Millions To Ask Themselves ‘Who Is Alyssa Milano?,’” and “Youth Pastor Rocking Beanie Just In Case Blizzard Hits In Middle Of July.”
In case the playful tone does not make it obvious that the editors are joking, their “About Us” page clearly labels the site as satirical. Search for “Babylon Bee” on Google and the top result is a link to the site accompanied by the line “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire.”
But the Bee is dead serious about its threat of legal action against venerable fact checker Snopes. At the heart of the dispute is a fact check written last week by Snopes’ content manager, Dan Evon. The Snopes article concerns a piece from the Bee that jabs at Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, who issued the muddy claim that a man in a supermarket told her to go back to her own country. In the Bee’s version, which pokes fun at the dubious nature of Thomas’ assertion, the confrontation occurred at a Chick-fil-A restaurant. The fictionalized Thomas claimed that an employee told her to go back to her country, only to later recall that he actually said “my pleasure.” While the Bee was making light of a divisive current event, Snopes gave the piece the full fact-check treatment.
This is not the first time it has fact-checked the Bee’s work. In a particularly notable example, Snopes took up the Bee’s obviously absurd claim that CNN had purchased industrial washing machines to launder the news. The consequences of fact-checking can be grave. In previous coverage, RealClear Fact Check Review reported that pieces deemed false by fact-checking outfits stand to lose as much of 80% of their Facebook audience. This is because the social media giant uses such verdicts to justify reducing the distribution of pieces deemed false. It hardly seems just to treat an openly satirical story with the same censorious hand as misleading or outright untruthful journalism. And, in fact, Facebook apologized to the Bee for its threat of censorship that resulted from the initial Snopes story.
In this latest instance, the Bee’s founder and minority owner, Adam Ford, took particular exception to the tone of the Snopes assessment. In a lengthy Twitter thread, he called Snopes’ handling of the piece on Thomas “particularly egregious” and “disturbing.” He pointed to a subtitle that castigated the Bee for “fanning the flames of controversy” and “muddying the details of a news story” to the point that it was unclear if the piece qualified as satire. Ford complained that throughout the Snopes story, supposedly an “objective fact check,” the assessment “veered towards pronouncing a moral judgment,” seemingly accusing the satirical site of willful deception. It is certainly understandable how Ford could feel this way: Snopes referred to the Bee’s “ruse” and offered that “the Babylon Bee has managed to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past.”
In an emailed newsletter sent July 29 to subscribers, the Bee wrote that “by lumping us in with fake news and questioning whether we really qualify as satire, Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us.” The message said that the Bee had retained legal representation. In an exchange of private messages over Twitter, Ford declined to comment beyond the email to subscribers and his tweets. Seth Dillon, the Bee’s CEO, did likewise.
Reached via email, Snopes’ publisher and CEO David Mikkelson said he is unaware of any pending legal action by the Bee, but pointed to revisions to the fact check along with a newly appended editors’ note. The note says that while “ome readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee … that was not the editors’ aim.” It added that “[w]e are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire.”
In the past, RealClear Fact Check Review has praised Snopes for its tendency to stick to verifying facts rather than committing the cardinal sin of “fact-checking” opinion. But in the same breath, we observed a tendency to use opinionated language when assessing claims. In short, we argued that Snopes does not fact check editorials, but it does editorialize. The piece on the Babylon Bee is another example of this tendency.
Mikkelson did not answer a follow-up request for information on the new standards for fact-checking satire, but such measures are sorely necessary. Lacking any change, sites like Snopes might just get stung by a Bee.
Fact-Checking Satire -- Is Snopes Serious?
Humor website the Babylon Bee is like The Onion for the politically conservative and evangelical Christian set. That is, it offers satirical articles written in the style of a legitimate news outlet. Recent headlines include “Futuristic, Utopian Paradise of Baltimore Completely Baffled By Trump’s Attacks,” “Alyssa Milano’s Political Activism Prompts Millions To Ask Themselves ‘Who Is Alyssa Milano?,’” and “Youth Pastor Rocking Beanie Just In Case Blizzard Hits In Middle Of July.”
In case the playful tone does not make it obvious that the editors are joking, their “About Us” page clearly labels the site as satirical. Search for “Babylon Bee” on Google and the top result is a link to the site accompanied by the line “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire.”
But the Bee is dead serious about its threat of legal action against venerable fact checker Snopes. At the heart of the dispute is a fact check written last week by Snopes’ content manager, Dan Evon. The Snopes article concerns a piece from the Bee that jabs at Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, who issued the muddy claim that a man in a supermarket told her to go back to her own country. In the Bee’s version, which pokes fun at the dubious nature of Thomas’ assertion, the confrontation occurred at a Chick-fil-A restaurant. The fictionalized Thomas claimed that an employee told her to go back to her country, only to later recall that he actually said “my pleasure.” While the Bee was making light of a divisive current event, Snopes gave the piece the full fact-check treatment.
This is not the first time it has fact-checked the Bee’s work. In a particularly notable example, Snopes took up the Bee’s obviously absurd claim that CNN had purchased industrial washing machines to launder the news. The consequences of fact-checking can be grave. In previous coverage, RealClear Fact Check Review reported that pieces deemed false by fact-checking outfits stand to lose as much of 80% of their Facebook audience. This is because the social media giant uses such verdicts to justify reducing the distribution of pieces deemed false. It hardly seems just to treat an openly satirical story with the same censorious hand as misleading or outright untruthful journalism. And, in fact, Facebook apologized to the Bee for its threat of censorship that resulted from the initial Snopes story.
In this latest instance, the Bee’s founder and minority owner, Adam Ford, took particular exception to the tone of the Snopes assessment. In a lengthy Twitter thread, he called Snopes’ handling of the piece on Thomas “particularly egregious” and “disturbing.” He pointed to a subtitle that castigated the Bee for “fanning the flames of controversy” and “muddying the details of a news story” to the point that it was unclear if the piece qualified as satire. Ford complained that throughout the Snopes story, supposedly an “objective fact check,” the assessment “veered towards pronouncing a moral judgment,” seemingly accusing the satirical site of willful deception. It is certainly understandable how Ford could feel this way: Snopes referred to the Bee’s “ruse” and offered that “the Babylon Bee has managed to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past.”
In an emailed newsletter sent July 29 to subscribers, the Bee wrote that “by lumping us in with fake news and questioning whether we really qualify as satire, Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us.” The message said that the Bee had retained legal representation. In an exchange of private messages over Twitter, Ford declined to comment beyond the email to subscribers and his tweets. Seth Dillon, the Bee’s CEO, did likewise.
Reached via email, Snopes’ publisher and CEO David Mikkelson said he is unaware of any pending legal action by the Bee, but pointed to revisions to the fact check along with a newly appended editors’ note. The note says that while “ome readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee … that was not the editors’ aim.” It added that “[w]e are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire.”
In the past, RealClear Fact Check Review has praised Snopes for its tendency to stick to verifying facts rather than committing the cardinal sin of “fact-checking” opinion. But in the same breath, we observed a tendency to use opinionated language when assessing claims. In short, we argued that Snopes does not fact check editorials, but it does editorialize. The piece on the Babylon Bee is another example of this tendency.
Mikkelson did not answer a follow-up request for information on the new standards for fact-checking satire, but such measures are sorely necessary. Lacking any change, sites like Snopes might just get stung by a Bee.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I will never understand how people in the media can actively work to deplatform other people in the media. Do you really think that this is going end well for you?
The internet has done lots of good things for the news -- people today are exposed to a much broader diversity of views than during the era of the big three networks dominating television and a handful of newspapers and magazines dominating print. That's great. And there have been lots of times when an amateur with a website has broken open stories that the MSM would have ignored. But this is a real downside to having journalism performed by people who aren't really rooted in the traditions of journalism. There's a growing disrespect among journalists to freedom of the press, which is bizarre to me.
The internet has done lots of good things for the news -- people today are exposed to a much broader diversity of views than during the era of the big three networks dominating television and a handful of newspapers and magazines dominating print. That's great. And there have been lots of times when an amateur with a website has broken open stories that the MSM would have ignored. But this is a real downside to having journalism performed by people who aren't really rooted in the traditions of journalism. There's a growing disrespect among journalists to freedom of the press, which is bizarre to me.
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
The Babylon Bee continuing their pissing war with Snopes with this pre-Dem debate article...
Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
The Babylon Bee is a satire site, but that may be the most accurate analysis of Snopes the media has published.
Max Power
Footballguy
Not Snopes, but same game.
Is there an answer to this yet?
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/article/2019/aug/05/did-media-change-identity-el-paso-shooter-nope/
Is there an answer to this yet?
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/article/2019/aug/05/did-media-change-identity-el-paso-shooter-nope/
rockaction
Footballguy
I'd still urge all postings to occur in my gentle rival thread, where the title of "S'Nopes! The Kardinal Offishal Fact-Checking Thread" will never change.
rockaction
Footballguy
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
I'd also like to get snopes opinion on the video link of the shooting aftermath inside the El Paso Walmart.
https://youtu.be/LoCbnN6kFfY
Multiple media outlets have pointed to this clip or used an image from the clip and implied it is the same Walmart post shooting.
Either answer there are going to be some tough follow ups.
https://youtu.be/LoCbnN6kFfY
Multiple media outlets have pointed to this clip or used an image from the clip and implied it is the same Walmart post shooting.
Either answer there are going to be some tough follow ups.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not sure if snopes...or anyone like them take requests...nor do they investigate every youtube video out there.
Max Power
Footballguy
I probably have to make some outlandish claim for them to care. I might have to email them.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/i/status/1157726405758787584
That other link isnt pointing to the same video anymore. Or I messed up it initially.
This one should work as well.
https://youtu.be/LoCbnN6kFfY
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
Link
The Co-Founder Of The Fact-Checking Site Snopes Was Writing Plagiarized Articles Under A Fake Name
“You can always take an existing article and rewrite it just enough to avoid copyright infringement."
Dean Sterling Jones
Posted on August 13, 2021, at 10:19 a.m. ET
David Mikkelson, the co-founder of the fact-checking website Snopes, has long presented himself as the arbiter of truth online, a bulwark in the fight against rumors and fake news. But he has been lying to the site's tens of millions of readers
The Co-Founder Of The Fact-Checking Site Snopes Was Writing Plagiarized Articles Under A Fake Name
“You can always take an existing article and rewrite it just enough to avoid copyright infringement."
Dean Sterling Jones
Posted on August 13, 2021, at 10:19 a.m. ET
David Mikkelson, the co-founder of the fact-checking website Snopes, has long presented himself as the arbiter of truth online, a bulwark in the fight against rumors and fake news. But he has been lying to the site's tens of millions of readers
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Not surprised. Snopes has been a joke for a long time now and is nothing more than a certified fact checker for Democrats. Meaning, when the Democrats want to push propoganda, they just ask Snopes to verify that what they're saying is true (even if it isn't). They've long been in bed with the left.
Anyone who cites Snopes to prove a point hasn't proven anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
What if someone uses snopes to point out how snopes isn’t accurate. Does that make snopes accurate and did that person prove something?
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
What if someone uses snopes to point out how snopes isn’t accurate. Does that make snopes accurate and did that person prove something?
OMG. Mind....blown.
Roy L Fewks
Footballguy
Nailing Mikkelson for plagiarism is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion.
Check out Mikkelson's divorce papers. Much more interesting and more damning stuff in there.
Check out Mikkelson's divorce papers. Much more interesting and more damning stuff in there.
