re: Snopes makes Pravda look good..re Trump mugging

quote:

---

bullshite. LOL

---

You just love unprovable statements, don't you?

quote:

---

There is proof. Because again, the chance of an independent witness fabricating the same exact details as Trump is ZERO.

---

That isn't tangible proof though. God damn you're dumb.

quote:

---

Says the guy suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You're the one with the problem, bro. I'm sitting here calmly puting you in your place, just using strong language you don't like.

Deal with it or GTFO.

---

I'm done with you. You're literally delusional.

quote:

---

It was a story completely planted by Trump's publicist.

I don't know if it's true or not, but Trump's comment, "I'm surprised you found out about it" is pretty suspect and kind of tips the story off as a publicity stunt.

---

Right, so James Rosen is in on it too then?

The witness he found, that just happens to have the exact same matching details of the event as Trump, Rosen conspired to have this guy lie?

And to that effect, Mrs. Romeo, too? Except instead of having her lie and give the same exact details, they conspired to have her give a different version of events?

Yeah, that's a fricking brilliant conspiracy theory. Good grief.

quote:

---

Snopes has been proven to be a leftist rag and not credible

---

Link?

In our post-truth world, the MSM's job is to control the narrative. That's what Snopes is attempting to do here.

quote:

---

You a-hole Lefties are looking for anything you can to try and throw shade at this guy because you’re consumed by hate and overwhelming butthurt.

---

Ho Lee shite. The only person in this damn thread that speaks an ounce of objective truth is TH03. He simply pointed out the reason why snopes says it is "unproven" and cited sources. And your response is this? There are only 2 accounts of this story and they don't say the same thing. If there were other witnesses, which how could there not have beeen, you'd also think that more people would be corroborating either side.

You accuse someone of being hateful because they are objectively skeptical. It's laughable.

quote:

---

This is no different. You’re stupidly setting aside logic and taking the side of Snopes, which is a known Lefty hackjob spin mongering organization.

---

He's not taking sides. You are. Snopes does get things wrong sometimes. But if you read it, and other sources to form your own opinion on whether or not something is real, that doesn't mean you are in bed with Snopes.

Lol

You have to understand the mentality of this board. Anything that isn’t far right can be dismissed and called a liberal conapiracy with any source whatsoever. It doesn’t matter. It can be a source they’ve rejected countless times, but if it fits the current narrative they all hoot and holler about victory. If it’s already in their narrative, it takes a year long trial to actually disprove or reject the source. Notice how the waters are still muddy on the Vegas shooter being Muslim? Or Obama’s “fake” birth certificate? Because once they see it’s going no where they just leap to the next conspiracy, leaving open ends everywhere and never admitting anything. Can you imagine saying some of the stuff bengal has said about the children who weren’t shot in Florida about the vegas survivors? You’d probably be banned. If the Florida shooter was Muslim it wouldn’t have been looked into like this. It would be open and shut case. Just an insight on how their minds work. Fascinating to watch honestly.

Another experiment?

quote:

---

LOL the article link doesn't say anything like that at all. YOU ARE FAKE NEWS

Ill sum up your link since you tried to get me in a gotcha moment.

Daily mail runs an article claiming Snopes founder used money for prostitutes

Forbes runs a commentary article about how Snopes didn't comment on those allegation

---

Apparently all you read was the first paragraph. You should read on.

quote:

---

Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

---

quote:

---

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.”

---

quote:

---

Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars?

---

quote:

---

In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

---

quote:

---

When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process.

This was highly unexpected, as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes would have a detailed written formal evaluation process for new fact checkers that would include having them perform a set of fact checks and include a lengthy set of interview questions designed to assess their ability to identify potential or perceived conflicts of interest and work through potential biases.

---

quote:

---

This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy. Imagine a team of 50 staunch climate deniers all working collaboratively to debunk a new scientific study showing a clear link between industrial pollution and climate change. The very large team size does not make up for the lack of diversity of opinion. Yet, David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams.

---

quote:

---

Not only does this rob those individuals of credit, but perhaps most critically, it makes it impossible for outside entities to audit who is contributing to what fact check and to ensure that fact checkers who self-identify as strongly supportive or against particular topics are not assigned to fact check those topics to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest or bias.

---

quote:

---

David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story.

In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment. David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label

---

quote:

---

Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings.

---

In other words, Snopes has no credibility.

quote:

---

Christ it's like talking to a wall with you people.

---

As someone who votes republican/conservative for every election, the Political Board represents the mouthbreathing faction of the right that holds it back


The people on here are legit psychos

Figured as much