snopes.com  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 23 December 2016, 11:42 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackrzz View Post
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.
Speaking personally, it was never a concern of mine. To start with Snopes is a privately run site and their hiring practices aren't any of my business - it's not like newspapers or other factchecking sites or organisations publicize the reasons behind their hiring practices. Besides which, I'm sure that Snopes would have exercised a fair amount of oversight over the new recruits and would have put them through a training period. It's not Snopes let some random strangers start posting whatever they wanted.

The only exception would be if there was a noticeable change in the quality of Snopes' articles and I haven't seen that.

The entire article was a series of ad hominem arguments trying to find some way of attacking the character of the people behind Snopes instead of commenting on the work performed by those people.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23 December 2016, 11:59 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 10,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey View Post
The article's implication that people are less able to factcheck because of their sexual activities is just ..... staggeringly idiotic.
Straight up slut shaming.

Quote:
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.
Yeah, fact-checking accuracy is accomplished by listing sources of information so that people can review them to see what they are and evaluate them, which Snopes has always done.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24 December 2016, 08:21 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Default

Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for all sorts of accusations to be tossed out there in the heated emotional atmosphere of a divorce. The terms of a binding settlement agreement preclude me from discussing the details publicly, so I can't address anything in that regard.

Suffice it to say that our marriage had long been an unhappy one for both of us, we had both expressed a desire to separate, and although things could have been handled better all around, we're both better off that it's over. As many people here have often advised others, life's too short to waste it allowing yourself to be stuck in an unhappy situation (whatever that situation might be), scared of seeking change.

My new wife's former profession is one she never attempted to hide or keep a secret; it was out there for anyone to find if they went looking. Although the tendency for slut-shaming is clearly still very strong among certain groups, what matters to me is that Elyssa is an intelligent, witty, intellectually curious, funny, kind, caring, loving, and supportive woman with the biggest heart and the greatest sense of fun of anyone I've ever known, and an immense circle of friends and family who love and adore her. It's other people's loss that they'd prefer to deal with stereotypes rather than actually getting to know a person.

I expect it's something of a disappointment to those who are so afraid of fact-checking that they have been digging mightily to find some compromising information about me that they couldn't turn up any undisclosed political affiliations or involvements, inappropriate financial ties, spousal abuse, criminal activity, drug use, etc., the best they could do is publicize that we had a somewhat messy divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24 December 2016, 08:30 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,343
Default

Sorry to hear about the divorce, Snopes.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24 December 2016, 09:33 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 7,315
Default

I am also sorry to hear that things worked out so as to wind up in divorce.

However, now that they have done so, I hope the future will be good for all concerned.

And I agree that it's got nothing to do with the quality of the fact-checking; as well as that Elyssa's choice of profession has nothing to do with her quality as a person.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24 December 2016, 11:50 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is online now
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,703
Default

I'm sorry too but, to be honest, I'm mainly just sorry that snopes ends up having to address personal and private - and, otherwise, past-tense - issues for no other reason than the fact that some reporters couldn't find any real story. (Someone fact check that, please.)

Also, congratulations on your marriage, snopes! I wish you all the best.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25 December 2016, 10:19 AM
Die Capacitrix's Avatar
Die Capacitrix Die Capacitrix is offline
 
Join Date: 03 January 2005
Location: Kanton Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 3,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I'm sorry too but, to be honest, I'm mainly just sorry that snopes ends up having to address personal and private - and, otherwise, past-tense - issues for no other reason than the fact that some reporters couldn't find any real story. (Someone fact check that, please.)

Also, congratulations on your marriage, snopes! I wish you all the best.
I know it's frowned upon, but a heartfelt "me too".

I was just thinking today how it's sometimes unfortunate to see behind the curtain as the noise (and it is normally just noise) distracts from the show.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 25 December 2016, 11:00 AM
omegazord omegazord is offline
 
 
Join Date: 14 January 2015
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey
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.
The claim isn't just that they have political opinions, but that one of the writers had stood for political office. Which is entirely relevant if theyre going to be fact checking articles relating to either their or the opposing party. You're right that everyone has political biases and noone can be considered neutral. All the more reason to have those biases out in the open.

The stuff about the divorce is both irrelevant and hurtful
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 25 December 2016, 11:57 AM
Jay Tea Jay Tea is offline
 
 
Join Date: 09 October 2002
Location: gg gg
Posts: 13,910
Default

Aaah, the Mail, getting a wee bit antsy in a realm of, well, people that can espie rank pseudo journalism when they see it smeared across the faces of millions. Hardly a shock, no less to the modern system.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 25 December 2016, 05:29 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegazord View Post
The claim isn't just that they have political opinions, but that one of the writers had stood for political office.
Which isn't true at all: She isn't, and never has been, a writer for the site; her job functions are completely non-editorial, so any previous political activity on her part is irrelevant. It's as ridiculous as claiming that the New York Times' political reporting is compromised because one of their IT guys once donated money to the DNC twelve years ago.

It's just as stupid as their deliberately pulling an ancient post of Kim's out of context to make it sound like she said she was smoking pot while writing for the site, when it was actually something she wrote years before she started working for us and referenced posting social chat to this message board.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 27 December 2016, 12:10 AM
urbanlegendfanatic urbanlegendfanatic is offline
 
 
Join Date: 16 October 2014
Location: California
Posts: 139
Default

Well, the question isn't what the writers get up to in their private life. It is whether or not their stories are accurate and whether they are biased. I have found their stories to be pretty accurate (no one is entirely accurate) and I don't notice a bias - they may all vote left but they debunk the right myths as much as the left. The scary part of the article is that people are getting their news from Facebook. Who does that?
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 12:40 PM
My dog Pepper was put to sleep yesterday Reading Girl Wild Kingdom 15 05 March 2014 05:59 PM
Today's illicit drugs were yesterday's tonics snopes Medical 21 05 September 2008 10:42 PM
Only Yesterday snopes Politics 1 11 August 2008 04:29 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.


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