This is bogus right

[SAnd]

Snopes has a left/liberal bias. Be careful. I put them in the same category as Wikipedia, useful but not totally trustworthy.

FWIW

[KevDen2005]

Snopes has a left/liberal bias. Be careful. I put them in the same category as Wikipedia, useful but not totally trustworthy.

FWIW

I agree, I always use both as a quick reference just to check and get an immediate answer on something I am curious about. If I really need to know or need serious information, or am doing research then I will certainly use more trustworthy sources and leave snopes and wikipedia out of it.

[Irving]

Snopes has a left/liberal bias.

I've never noticed this before. Any examples you remember off the top of your head?

[SAnd]

One I remember is the Blackwell editorial entry. I can't be specific but at the time Snopes posted there were several webpages that deconstructed it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp

Another is http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp about G Bushes visit to Ft. Hood. Why bring up Obama to defend? It had nothing to do with Bushes visit.

I can't cite more examples off the top of my head. Sorry but I tend to remember conclusions and "file and forget" mentally the reasons behind my conclusions. I know it makes it hard back up my opinions but that's the way I am.

I am conservative / libertarian. I see thing from that point of view although I try my best to be objective.

I went to the Snopes website this morning and cruised around. The way they write raises alarm flags and makes me question the accuracy. It's just their style. An example is they will cite a source for one quote but then not cite a source the next until the bottom of the page.

The Snopes people are subtle in the way they do things. They present opinion as facts.

Why don't they have anything on environment? That makes me suspicious. I can't believe they aren't getting stuff to investigate about global warming.

Barbara & David P. Mikkelson run Snopes. A quote from the Snopes webpage, "Barbara's a Canadian citizen who couldn't possibly have an affiliation with a U.S. political party, and I'm officially registered as an independent. Neither of us has ever made a donation to a political party or candidate, worked on behalf of a political campaign (either on a paid or volunteer basis), or publicly endorsed or supported any party, candidate, or political cause (not even to the extent of displaying a bumper sticker, putting up a yard sign, or wearing a campaign button)." I won't trust anybody that claims to be apolitical. If they admitted their views and stated they tried to be fair and balance I would tend to believe them more.

[Hoosier]

Another is http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp about G Bushes visit to Ft. Hood. Why bring up Obama to defend? It had nothing to do with Bushes visit.

Because Obama was part of the various forward emails that snopes investigates? There are snippets from the assorted emails which mention that Obama was there just for a game of basketball.

I went to the Snopes website this morning and cruised around. The way they write raises alarm flags and makes me question the accuracy. It's just their style. An example is they will cite a source for one quote but then not cite a source the next until the bottom of the page.

Welcome to the internet, I suppose. It's an excellent reference that cites sources. If you don't like the style of writing, I suggest referencing the sources and going from there. The same thing as Wikipedia. It's an excellent reference, and more importantly if you don't believe the veracity (or bias) of the material, refer back to the sources.

Why don't they have anything on environment? That makes me suspicious. I can't believe they aren't getting stuff to investigate about global warming.

I don't know about you, but I'd stay away from that hot potato, unless you like reading thousands of pages of very dry data. As I see it there's essentially two view points: the UN climate change panel, and the people who have their fingers in their ears going NANANANANA I CANT HEAR YOU.
Oops, was that biased?

If they admitted their views and stated they tried to be fair and balance I would tend to believe them more.

Does saying you're Fair and Balanced convince you that it's true? Alright, so I guess if snopes doesn't live up to your standards for quality reporting, you can either believe those forwards you get are truth, or research them yourself. I'll stick with Snopes.

o7