CNN (Surprise!) Article on the History of Snopes

Pizzagate is clearly debunked, right? I mean... Snopes said so, it must be false. This article focuses on their history and some recent "debunking" they've done but is careful not to wander into Pizza territory. They state that the traffic skyrocketed when people visited to verify the impossibly evil claims re: 9/11. (Example I pulled, Building 7: http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/ - where they go on to make a claim that no one can prove the building fell at free fall speed. They conveniently ignore the fact that NIST eventually admitted that Building 7 DID fall at free fall rates).

They go on to explain how they work directly with Facebook as the "fact checking" de facto decision makers. And how "in the age of Trump" their traffic has picked up significantly (nice dig to our POTUS who has an admittedly hard time fact-checking before he speaks sometimes). The article ends with:

"I often feel like we're not really changing anybody's mind," he said. "The people who use the site are the people who are looking for something that confirms what they already think.

"But the people whose beliefs are being challenged, who think something is really true, and we're saying it's false, they'll just say (Snopes) isn't credible or it's biased or it's not qualified. Yeah, it's kind of disconcerting at times."

Well, Mr. Mikkelson, here's your problem. And OUR problem when it comes to Pizzagate. Snopes is cherry picking and clearly following the exact same narrative that the media does.

Example 1: HRC and the Russian Uranium: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ They go on to explain a series of questionable actions/contributions and dealings with Russia re: Uranium. Ending the assessment by saying they know far too little and that the scrutiny is well deserved. If you know "far too little", why is it labeled "FALSE"?

Counter-Example: Russian Computers tied to Trump: http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/ Ending with "In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up:" And yet THIS is labeled as "UNPROVEN", not "FALSE"... with far more access to intel and still no solid evidence.

And lastly, how does this relate to us? Well... the article sparked concern and I checked their database re: Pizzagate to see if anything has been added. Nothing since December. They "debunked" the Podesta sketches, they "debunked" Comet Ping Pong, but at the end of the day they are still simply cherry picking to follow the MSM narrative. It is so obvious it hurts.

So, let's keep a very close eye on any connections to collusion with Snopes. That would be a very strong arrow in our quiver if we could somehow isolate a specific series of examples/communications that clearly illustrate how Snopes may be either taking direct orders, or just indirectly following the obvious path.

It is easy to 'debunk' something if you cherry pick extremely specific examples. The entire article (http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/)) is solely focused on linking everything to Comet Ping Pong. This is something we've all moved away from for many months, yet, they don't bother to look at the exponentially deepened ravine that we are peering into. But, why would they? Most of the connections, historical examples, artwork, financial transactions, insider information, George Webb's amazing work and social media imagery/commentary is far too hard to explain.

They will continue to cherry pick and undermine all efforts to scrutinize the narrative until WE can find a smoking gun that proves their bias.

/Rant