snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   We've Got Mail (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Kiss my bias (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=1204)

snopes 11 January 2007 07:30 AM

Kiss my bias
 
Comment: Thanks for the info, but I strongly disagree with you concerning Chavez and Sheehan. Sounds like some of your troops are socialist Bush-haters. Bush may not be the most intelligent man around, but he is not an immoral, dishonest criminal like as Clinton.

Johnny Slick 11 January 2007 07:44 AM

I agree with this post except for the part about Bush not being the most intelligent man around.

snopes 28 January 2007 09:04 PM

Comment: the fact that you used cnn as a source of information regarding
barack obama's muslim childhood ties causes me to doubt your reliability.
cnn is a known to be a liberal leaning "news" source. this is comparable
to making a democrat believe information from fox news channel.

snopes 15 February 2007 10:41 PM

Comment: this is the 4th time I have used your site to respond to an email
that was sent to me. You are definitely politically biased, as is made
clear in your responses to certain articles. Further more, your
explanations do not mean certain events did not take place, as people can
make anything look like what they want it to look like, and your
explanations did not verify what the truth was, one way or the other, just
as you see it. I am disappointed you give facts that support your
obvious political bent. So using Snopes to determine truth is not really
viable. Shame on you for portraying your site as legitimate. You have
no business giving out information on articles that you cannot remain
neutral on.

claudia 16 February 2007 12:57 AM

I notice he doesn't give any examples, or even say in which direction you are supposedly biased.

rockland6674 16 February 2007 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by claudia (Post 64667)
I notice he doesn't give any examples, or even say in which direction you are supposedly biased.

snopes leans to either the far-left or the far-right, depending on which nutjob you ask.

- rock "swaying in the breeze" land

snopes 19 February 2007 11:50 PM

Comment: The length you go to exonerate and excuse Bill Cilnton only makes
me suspicious of some validity to the claims of his detractors. Do you
believe enough is enough?

snopes 19 February 2007 11:50 PM

Comment: I have read your website and decided that you guys have to be fat
redneck, republicans and religious idiots. I know you don't care that you
will lose one site visitor but you did. Your obvious racism and slanted
views for the right is obvious in the stories you are posting.

claudia 20 February 2007 12:54 AM

How come the accusations never give examples?

snopes 13 March 2007 02:00 AM

Comment: Your intro to "Risque Business" states: "We engage in sex because
we have a powerful biological urge to do so: it's nature's way of ensuring
that we reproduce." This is absurd, inaccurate, and offensive. Many
people engage in sexual activity that cannot lead to reproduction, such as
gay and lesbian people and women who have passed menopause. According to
your theory, they should not experience any sexual desire at all, or if
they do, they are "unnatural," a freak of nature.

You may personally believe that it is immoral to have sexual relations
with someone unless you are planning to have a baby, but your personal
opinions do not make a "biological urge."

I suggest that you read some of the literature on the varieties of sexual
desires and expressions, such as John D'Emilio's "Intimate Matters: A
History of Sexuality in America," or the journal "Sexualities," prior to
making statements that brand people as "unnatural" simply because their
romantic partners cannot get pregnant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: I would like to schedule a time to meet with you via telephone
regarding a statement on your website which expresses prejudice against
gay and lesbian persons. I have already emailed you once, but you have
chosen not to respond.

It is likely that the offensive statement was included due to ignorance
rather than actual anti-gay hatred. However, if you expect gay people or
non-homophobic heterosexuals patronize your website, they may conclude
that you promote bigotry, so if you are not, it is important that you
remove or qualify the offending statement.

If you are anti-gay, of course, it is important that you state on the home
page that only heterosexuals are welcome on your site.

Please let me know a good time and date to contact you via telephone.

snopes 13 March 2007 02:03 AM

Another of my favorite "you're obviously biased!" claims is readers who come to our site looking for some political item (typically one that agrees with their own political leanings) and, not finding it on our site, indignantly claim that we have deliberately left it off due to political partisanship.

We aren't a general news site that reports on everything of interest that happens in the world, or a historical reference site, or an on-demand research service with unlimited resources to respond to every inquiry, nor do we pick and choose which items to write about based on some alleged political partisanship. We write about material that circulates on the Internet and via popular culture, and when it comes to political items, we tackle whichever items we're receiving the most inquiries about at any given moment. If a particular item isn't on our site, it's either because the item isn't the type of material we deal with or because not enough readers have expressed interest in it for us to expend the resources researching and writing about it. (Contrary to what some people may think, many of our readers are interested in a wide variety of topics other than the latest political screeds.)

inkrose115 13 March 2007 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 94849)
Yeegads, this is as dumb as claiming that the statement "Hunger is biology's way of prompting us to take in sustenance" is wrong because sometimes people eat for pleasure, and that anyone who says otherwise must harbor a hateful, anti-chef bias.

- snopes

You anti-chef racist! :mad:

Canuckistan 13 March 2007 03:19 AM

Quote:

It is likely that the offensive statement was included due to ignorance rather than actual anti-gay hatred. However, if you expect gay people or non-homophobic heterosexuals patronize your website, they may conclude that you promote bigotry, so if you are not, it is important that you remove or qualify the offending statement.

If you are anti-gay, of course, it is important that you state on the home page that only heterosexuals are welcome on your site.
Now you tell me. Sheesh, snopes, why didn't you put this in the FAQ? Would have saved me so much time. :rolleyes:

snopes 13 March 2007 03:22 AM

One of my favorite examples of how readers often project their own biases onto us is when they complain that *we're* biased because in a Soapbox article we haven't quoted the entirety of some political screed they agree with.

We've been using the same standard for many years: If an opinion piece has been written by some identifiable figure, is available on-line through the author's own site (or that of a publisher), and bears a copyright notice, we (in accordance with the fair use provisions of copyright law) quote the first few opening paragraphs and then provide a link to the full text of the article. If the copyright status of an opinion piece isn't clear -- because the piece is anonymous, has been misattributed, or authorship is disputed -- we go ahead and reproduce the full text (unless and until the copyright issue is resolved).

Of course, that standard never stops some readers from claiming that we're somehow biased for actually respecting other people's copyrights. No, our writing a full article vetting the authorship of someone's opinion piece, quoting its opening paragraphs, and providing a link to the full text isn't good enough for some readers if the political slant of the piece is something they agree with -- then it's all a sinister plot on our part to somehow keep people from reading something we purportedly don't agree with. (*Why* we'd go to the bother of writing articles about opinion pieces that we allegedly didn't want people to read is a contradiction that such readers apparently never stop to ponder.)

Yet more testimony to how the "You're biased" e-mails actually document our readership's prejudices, not ours.

Canuckistan 13 March 2007 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 94943)
Just because we're anti-gay doesn't mean you're not welcome here ... as long as you don't tell anybody, of course.

Done. My secret is safe with me. :lol:

snopes 30 March 2007 06:21 PM

Comment: Please Unsubscribe me from your Lousy Site. I got where I half
way believed you, then came your Defense of the Who.. Cindy Sheehan. May
She Rot In He.. for her actions, which have completely destroyed all her
son believed in. You likewise have destroyed any belief I had in you
Supporting the B..ch.

snopes 30 March 2007 09:14 PM

Comment: SNOPES; WHILE I ENJOY CHECKING YOUR SITE FOR ACCURACY, IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT YOU DISCRIMINATE FOR THE LEFT ON MOST OF YOUR SUMMATIONS.
YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT IMPARTIAL. HOW ABOUT KEEPING IT " FAIR AND
BALANCED" AS THEY SAY ON FOX CHANNEL, THE CONSERVATIVE OASIS IN A
LIBERAL DESERT.

BringTheNoise 30 March 2007 09:21 PM

Looky, looky, a paradox!

snopes 18 June 2007 07:15 AM

Comment: your conclusion on murders of couple in Teen. is preposterious.
What if the perps amd the victims were reversed. you live in the liberal
denial world of journalism get out of the box!!!

snopes 18 June 2007 07:15 AM

Comment: It's unforunate that your research leans a little to the left.
You're leading astray ignorant people who imagine your site to be the
truth. Your commentary on H.R. 1592, and S.1105 is erroneous. The law of
Sowing and Reaping comes to mind.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.