Snopes used to strictly be a site you linked someone to disprove urban legends, and that good reputation is now being wielded in a partisan political battle
The headlines will say "X is FALSE" implying that a claim is unilaterally false, while one can see in the article's text that it's actually half-true, even more than half-true in some cases.
Or here they are actually declaring facts are not that important, much more important thing is feelings: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-... (yes, I know it's guest article, but they chose to publish it)
And the way to do it? Check out this spectacular "fact check" where they say "lacks concrete evidence but alludes to a deeper truth": https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colonel-sanders-kfc-miss-c...
And then their obnoxious habit of "fact checking" satirical publications (which they tried to pass on as actual fact check, but after being called on it resorted by just putting a label "yes, it's satire" and pretending they are doing valuable service by that).
Same tactic as NYT publishing so much under "opinion."
That's not at all what the article states and you stating that in your response puts into question the rest of it.
Edit: After reading the other article too, I can't see what your complaint here is. The claim is unproven and the article expounds on exactly why they made that assessment.
It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is. They acknowledge that the specific claim has no evidence behind it but that there are, in fact, other claims that have been similarly made that do have truth to them. "False" is not the same thing as "unproven" and there's nothing that definitively proves the claim as false while, at the same time, there is evidence for other similar claims.
Your responses suggest that you're not evaluating this in good faith.
My complaint is that very frequently Snopes lists claims without proof as false. And does not editorialize about why it might be "deeper truth". But in this case, it lists the claim as "unproven" (implying it might be true, just lacking proof, despite no indication of such proof might ever be found) and does editorialize.
For example, here's "false" rating: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ (chosen randomly - first "false" story I encountered on the site). Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven", since while we don't have a proof Trump ever evicted a veteran, he owns real estate, so he certainly could have. We could even editorialize about "deeper truth" in this claim, in the same vein - that not finding it in this case doesn't mean Trump couldn't have done in in other cases, and he did many other bad things, etc. But in this case Snopes correctly chose to not do it, stick to the facts and label it as "false". In the case above, regrettably, they did not.
Except it's very clearly not. There is direct evidence towards the contrary. The claim in question is from a tweet that's cited directly at the beginning of the article that makes a claim that Trump did something that he did not do. It's not "unproven", it's literally "false" because Trump had nothing to do with it other than having his name on the property of the incident in question.
This isn't some tenuous historical claim where the evidence has been lost and the fact that you can't see that means you either lack the ability to determine nuance or you're being intentionally dishonest and this was the best you could do or you couldn't find anything more concrete so you're hiding behind "chosen randomly".
If you have a claim that Snopes is incorrectly listing claims without proof as false, then post them. If they're as frequent as you claim, you shouldn't have to resort to a random post. You would have an example at the ready. I suspect that you realize your argument holds no merit and that's why you can't provide an example. Otherwise, I see no reason why you shouldn't easily be able to show something that you claim is "very frequent".
I've seen this repeated a few times now. Can you provide an example?
They haven't said anything untruthful here. But imagine the site were run by republicans - the framing would be different. The claim would be "5 of 6" instead of "every", allowing them to print a big green checkmark graphic, and supporting details for each attempt
It's not perfect but this doesn't seem like a good example of bias or "framing" like you claim.
And even if this were the only way anyone had worded the claim, it still merits a "partially true" or "mostly true".
I deliberately avoided putting specific examples in my first post because I didn't want to quibble over the specifics. Spin is spin, it's not outright lying. Snopes isn't going to bend the truth to such a degree that a democrat, when confronted with the article, would be forced to admit they are dirty rotten liars.
How so? At best, only 2 of the last 6 Presidents were actually called for impeachment by the Democratic party and, at worst, it was 3 if you count Nixon which was bi-partisan. How does that make the claim, in any way, "mostly true" or even "partially true"?
And there you have it. I think your objectivity might be a little questionable.
Reality has as known liberal bias.
Snopes has attacked them multiple times saying False. A logical person would not consider satirical being False.
This allows/causes Facebook to delete their content
https://reason.com/video/the-babylon-bee-satirizes-the-absur...