snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > About This Site > Snopes Spotting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 December 2016, 08:17 PM
Crackrzz's Avatar
Crackrzz Crackrzz is offline
 
Join Date: 19 September 2002
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 5,248
Icon402 Dailymail.co.uk from yesterday.

This is bad. First of all, who cares what any of the women employed with snopes do in their personal lives?

Oh, right, backwards Repugnicans who don't want women to be in charge of what they do with their bodies.

And the people who agree with them. So obviously, to them, this has everything to do with how well staff can fact check.

I'm so done with Facebook and most of the Internet. My ten year Facebook anniversary is Feb 9th. After that day, it's messenger to keep in touch with friends if I can't otherwise.

Lies have won. It truly is a post truth world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...xen-domme.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22 December 2016, 08:40 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,438
Default

It's the Daily Fail, that place wouldn't know the truth if it crashed an elephant through their front office. They're just trying to make Snopes look bad because of how often Snopes debunks their garbage.

Last edited by crocoduck_hunter; 22 December 2016 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22 December 2016, 09:37 PM
BoKu's Avatar
BoKu BoKu is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 3,820
Default

Are the specifics of the article open for discussion here?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22 December 2016, 10:59 PM
Gibbie's Avatar
Gibbie Gibbie is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 8,500
Default

The Daily Mail Snopes Story and Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23 December 2016, 12:08 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,640
Default

Reads like an article from someone with an axe to grind. For example
Quote:
Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record.
Uh, perhaps because 99% of the time there is no "author" of an internet rumor.

In addition, unlike what is taught in "Journalism 101", snopes publishes links to sources as well as actual evidence. Anyone that has additional pertinent facts can publish via other routes. Has anyone ever found a significant refutation of a snopes article that actually had new info?

I'm not sure what fantasy world the author lives in but everyone is biased. That does not mean they are therefore unreliable. Indeed, Forbes author, by your logic nothing published in Forbes should be believed since Forbes accepts advertising money and therefore is obviously unable to factually report on anything that has to do with their advertising customers. In addition, since people actual pay for Forbes that must mean that Forbes articles are all written specifically to increase sales without regard to accuracy. And finally, by the authors logic that anyone that has ever run for office is unreliable as a fact checker, it follows that anyone that has ever voted is also unreliable.

Methinks Forbes feels threatened and/or insulted that what is basically a couple-person shop is better at fact checking than the multi-million dollar traditional publisher.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23 December 2016, 12:10 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,640
Default

... one more thing. I'll bet there are hundreds of subjects on which Forbes would refuse to answer questions because of confidentiality agreements that they have entered into. By the authors logic that proves that Forbes is unsuited to be a fact checker since it is not sufficiently transparent on all matters.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23 December 2016, 07:43 AM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,566
Default

What an awful, prurient, horrible article
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23 December 2016, 02:28 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,495
Default

You left out "slut shaming".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23 December 2016, 02:47 PM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,658
Default

Forbes.com is a blogging site these days. The contributors there don't have any connection to Forbes except for permission to host their content.

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23 December 2016, 03:23 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,655
Reporter

His new wife is an ex-porn star. Found her vids.
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/tag/elyssa-young/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 23 December 2016, 03:24 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,655
Default

NSFW
http://www.xvideos.com/profiles/erin-o-bryn#
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 23 December 2016, 04:22 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,438
Default

Does it matter that she's a former porn actress? Is there something wrong with that?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 23 December 2016, 04:33 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Does it matter that she's a former porn actress? Is there something wrong with that?
Nope. Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Sad, though, he left Barbara. She was the brains behind the main page and quite a nice person..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23 December 2016, 04:59 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 7,980
Default

Who wound up with the cats?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23 December 2016, 05:50 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebobo View Post
His new wife is an ex-porn star. Found her vids.
This is from your source:
Quote:
She looks like a Jew to me:
Nice.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23 December 2016, 06:04 PM
Thebobo's Avatar
Thebobo Thebobo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 April 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,655
Default

I was simply showing she was indeed a porn star. I didn't notice the 'Jew' comment. I read the original article in the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23 December 2016, 06:07 PM
dfresh dfresh is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2005
Location: Oxford, PA
Posts: 3,813
Default

Obviously you can't do fact checking if you have had a divorce, especially one that sounds ugly.

It seems like there is a war on fact-checkers. That doesn't bode well for...well, facts and a fact-based reality.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23 December 2016, 06:50 PM
Crackrzz's Avatar
Crackrzz Crackrzz is offline
 
Join Date: 19 September 2002
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 5,248
Heavt breathing

Yeah, it certainly does not bode well for truth and fact checking at all.

I said most of the following on my Facebook:

As some of you know, I've known about this place since 2000 when I found the site in a book from my local library back home.

This article below pretty much nails how I feel about the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...P=share_btn_fb

Other articles mention that the new writers weren't vetted well enough (to their standards anyway). I did actually notice the new writers myself, and felt some concern about this.

But that honestly is my only concern. Unlike authoritarian boomer oppressive judgmental Repugnicans, I don't give two shNFBSKs what any woman does in her sex life or even as employment in that regard.

The alleged embezzlement? If that in itself doesn't affect the ability to accurately fact check, then it's not my business. Divorces can certainly be all sorts of messy.

I'm about ready to give up in general about online life, but while the right wing has won, I'm not letting go of the fight until I've said how I feel about this.

And now I have.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23 December 2016, 09:13 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,410
Default

The writer mentioned in the OP article was a longtime member of these boards before becoming a snopes employee. It saddens me to see her name dragged through the mud because the Mail has an axe to grind.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 23 December 2016, 11:06 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Does it matter that she's a former porn actress? Is there something wrong with that?
The article's implication that people are less able to factcheck because of their sexual activities is just ..... staggeringly idiotic.

The complaint that one of the writers has a political background therefore the site's "balance" is drawn into question was also weird. EVERYONE has political beliefs and it would be practically impossible to hire a staff who who completely neutral. Journalistic balance is about the content of the site.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I saw Obama yesterday, or was it his double Skeptic Social Studies 13 19 November 2014 01:40 PM
My dog Pepper was put to sleep yesterday Reading Girl Wild Kingdom 15 05 March 2014 06:59 PM
Today's illicit drugs were yesterday's tonics snopes Medical 21 05 September 2008 11:42 PM
Only Yesterday snopes Politics 1 11 August 2008 05:29 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.