rank
  • Report: #97773

Complaint Review: Snopes.com

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Tue, July 06, 2004
  • Updated: Mon, September 28, 2009

  • Reported By:Springfield New Jersey
Snopes.com
Worldwide Internet U.S.A.
  • Phone:
  • Web:
  • Category: Media

Snopes.com has a liberal political agenda. Rip-off! Internet

*Consumer Comment: Yes they are bias

*Consumer Comment: I'm confused -- The only ripoff that I can see is that you were robbed of a few minutes of your time.

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn't a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble's logo is really satanic. Snopes.com (hereafter snopes) is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don't count on them being fair and balanced when it comes to anything political or religious.

Although Snopes hasn't any political philosophy explicitly stated on the website, snopes' selectivity and analysis of political emails oozes with partisanship. Religious emails don't fare much better and typically get a liberal hatchet job. In a nutshell, although snopes has to reluctantly admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are true as far as snopes can determine, there is always a caveat, disclaimer, footnote, or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through snopes' lens. Some examples and links follow:

An email made its way around the country recently showing a picture of John Kerry at an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Snopes thinks ten thousand words is the only antidote to spinning this photo that Snopes had to admit was true. Indeed, Snopes has gone into high gear to rescue John Kerry from being associated with the extreme left. Snopes uses extensive quotes from Jane Fonda to demonstrate that John Kerry was not as much of a foaming at the mouth liberal as she herself was [is].

Snopes also quotes extensively from New York Times (and thought better perhaps of using their sources at Pravda and Granma) to prove what the atmosphere was like at these love-fests that Kerry participated in and spoke at. A small unexplained B&W photo appears on the right hand side of the screen depicting a cleaner-cut John Kerry being decorated in an apparent attempt to show he did in fact do something noteworthy and wasn't simply a hippie as depicted in the larger, color photo.

Snopes said the derogatory photo purports to show John Kerry, only to reluctantly admit in the next sentence that indeed the photo is real. Get your index finger and mouse ready to scroll down the pages and pages of voluminous material on Snopes beseeching you to ignore the photo and get to know the real John Kerry.

Snopes seems to have been exhausted by all the time it spent trying to exonerate Kerry that it lacked the energy to investigate a photo that is also real. In a photo depicting a soldier shaking hands with Hillary Clinton, the soldier crossed his fingers (visible in the photo) to memorialize his displease with being used in a photo-op by the hippie-turned-senator. Try crossing your finger right now the way the soldier did it in the photo. It's not a reflexive position and must have been deliberate on part of the soldier. Hillary made only one trip to see our troops, so it is not a Herculean task to track down the person who took the photo as well as the soldier in it.

Some more food for thought (all links removed by ripoffreport.com):
Verifies quotes from democrats were true but
goes on and on trying to defend democrats.

Attempts to speak to veracity of email urging boycott of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins' movies since they are Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden sympathizers. Snopes says still under investigation Nov 2003. I could wrap that investigation up in about 2 minutes. Those 2 are bona fide liberals and whackos (or is that redundant?)

You may have received this email yourself. It is an amazing and true litany of accomplishments of the US military in Iraq. Snopes can't seem to utter the words it's true so it gets a half green, half red light. It's truth is called into question by an Iraqi citizen A link to the criticism is provided, and just to prove to yourself how absurd it is, you should click on it.

A sample: the pro military email rightfully asserts one accomplishment as: the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. The rebuttal to this fact: We certainly hope so, but no one is sure about that yet. This invincible evidence seems to be enough to persuade snopes.com that the whole email is suspect and worthy of caution.

Another example: Email lists another accomplishment of the US military as: All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. To which the best argument the detractor can come up with is:
That's true. But every now and then, a school gets a warning about a bomb, so many parents are afraid to send their kids to schools, and when they do so, they will be deeply worried. Again this vague and fuzzy counter argument is flawless logic and enough to satisfy the good people at snopes.com that the whole email is dubious and, to be on the safe side, the hapless visitor to snopes.com should remain anti-war and believe that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq. Visit snopes.com for yourself to really laugh out loud. I simply can't do it justice here.

A very similar email went around with quotes from leading Democrats attesting to their belief that Sadaam Hussein did in fact have WMD. Snopes naturally had to admit the quotes were true, but always with the caveat, quickly opined that, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them. Please! We've all gotten emails like this. You use a quote to get a point across. You can't make people on your email forward list sift 35 pages of Medeline Albright in order to put her quote in context Just another example of snopes' bend-over-backwards policy to rescue Democrats from their own words.

Meanwhile, don't expect an snopes investigation to proceed much further, snopes is busy crafting explanations for Kerry's $25 million worth of real estate which is one of the biggest whoppers this web site unashamedly pulls.

Like baptism, being a liberal cleanses you from all stain in the mind of snopes. Former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd got just such a catharsis and gets an open mic on snopes. Email snopes was investigating was Senator Robert Byrd delivered a fiery floor speech condemning President Bush's calls for military action against Iraq. Was it true? Sure was, says snopes, which then proceeds to reproduce the whole speech (for the 9 people in America who want to read it). Instead of a caveat, such as ALL conservative emails get as a matter of course from Snopes, snopes can't contain itself and adds it's own 2 cents, [Byrd's] eloquence in putting forth his opinions and arguments on this issue has captivated many like-minded members of the anti-war movement. I see a hyperlink to (link removed) coming any day now.

Many emails are forwards from either soldiers, judges, or military officers who are or were in Iraq. They all have the individual's name, hometown etc. in the email. Sue enough, snopes investigates and finds out the person exists and the email is true, but, never quite happy, snopes adds the disclaimer: although true, the email resembles another email sent by someone else etc. The reader is left to conclude that plagiarism or some form of falsification has occurred. Nonsense. With thousands of our servicemen and civilians in Iraq, many are bound to witness the same events or accomplishments and report on them individually. Snopes needs a basic course on hermeneutics.

Ron
Springfield, Illinois
U.S.A.

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/06/2004 11:53 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Snopescom/internet/Snopescom-has-a-liberal-political-agenda-Rip-off-Internet-97773. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Snopes.com

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 2Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Yes they are bias

AUTHOR: Cino24 - (U.S.A.)

Snopes likes holding the title of being the 'Authority' on fact checking.  However they are extremely bias.  Here's some actual proof.  Read and pay attention to their comment made about the ACLU.  Very liberal.  It's obvious if you do a little investigating.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396670/?tag=content;col1

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

I'm confused -- The only ripoff that I can see is that you were robbed of a few minutes of your time.

AUTHOR: Elizabeth - (U.S.A.)

I'm sorry, I'm confused, are you calling snopes a ripoff because they lean to the left in their investigations?

They have an interesting site to visit if you like to kill some time online now and then. But I don't believe that everything they say is to be taken at face value nor do I recall them claiming to be the final word in urban legend investigations.

I understand that you didn't agree with what snopes published, and you feel you have significant evidence to disprove it, so why don't you start your own site?

The only ripoff that I can see is that you were robbed of a few minutes of your time. Snopes did no great harm to you by publishing their "facts".
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory