Poor Snopes, their try to debunk Pizzagate was pretty easy to DEBUNK via simple fact checking. (pizzagate)

submitted ago by anonOpenPress

The article I checked: http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
The fact checking post: https://voat.co/v/pizzagatejournalism/1838043
An image for sharing for awareness: https://i.imgsafe.org/b610fde124.jpg

Snopes wrote their effort to debunk Pizzagate on November 2016. My take on their piece was a pretty important project which has been on my mind for some time, while the Snopes article has been the top 1 search result for "pizzagate" for sevaral months, continuously giving a false impression to the public.

I only needed to go through the first 40 lines of the Snopes article with a professional touch, which was enough to debunk the whole article. Snopes actually even debunked themselves. LOL - My findings on Snopes errors in short:

  • Narrowed scope, even that a more complete one was presented by their main source
  • Several signals of unprofessionality in the fact checking
  • Including controversials (first claiming "none was true", later representing parts most likely to be true)
  • Bad use of sources (picking single online username not even checked for reliability)
  • Bad use of sources (using biased media and a person in question, Alefantis)
  • Bad use of sources (not linking directly to some sources in use)
  • Lack of separating Snopes' own opinions from sourced information
  • Inaccuracy

By sharing this project you'll help the public to realize how even the number one search result could be totally false information, rising awareness not only for the pizzagate but for some media criticism too. Please use the image above, or find your own ways to spread the awareness.

ps. Feel free to submit any of your findings to /v/pizzagatejournalism/ whenever you need help in fact checking something. I'm not doing the job for you, but I'm willing to help you on that, in purpose to fill the /v/pizzagate sub with checked, reliable submissions helpful for our investigations.

Banned4Truth ago

link in source is 404'd

Kacey ago

To understand Snopes you need to understand just who the people running Snopes are and what is their character

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/snopes-co-founder-accused-of-embezzling-company-money-spending-it-on-prostitutes/ "The founder of mythbusting website Snopes, which was recently tapped by Facebook as one of four “fact-check” organizations patrolling the site for “fake news,” embezzled $98,000 in company funds before spending it on “himself and the prostitutes he hired,” according to legal documents filed by his ex-wife reviewed by the Daily Mail.

After divorcing from his first wife, Barbara Mikkelson, David Mikkelson married Elyssa Young, a former porn star and current escort who now works for Snopes as an administrator, according to the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail also revealed that top Snopes “fact-checker” Kim LaCapria claimed on her personal blog that she has “posted to Snopes” after smoking marijuana. "

RweSure ago

You think your fact checking was professional? In the first three sentences below you "check" three facts. You get every single one of them wrong.

Claim that Alefantis was once in a relationship with Brock is not sourced either, making that an opinion of Snopes. Claim that Mr. Brock was a provocative right-wing journalist is not sourced either. Claim that he became an outspoken advocate for Mrs. Clinton follows the same line. WHAT KIND OF FACT CHECKING IS THIS, dear Snopes?

More at the link. https://voat.co/v/pizzagatejournalism/1838043/9005433

anonOpenPress ago

Replied to you there

Dressage2 ago

Great job! They are such loser libs! I tried to red pill a dear friend and she told her brother. He told her I was full of crap because he checked Snopes about PG and they said it was not true. I had to open a bottle of red after that phone call.

anonOpenPress ago

Thank You! I'm interested to hear what her brother says after reading the fact checking part, if he ever will.

ps. There are quite a few sayings circling around Twitter about people who need to rely on Snopes.

V____Z ago

Bravo! These are my favorite type of posts. One day their lies will have to catch up with them. This is unsustainable.

PeesInPools ago

Nice work! For me, Snopes is no longer the top result on several engines, which is a good thing.

anonOpenPress ago

What's in top for you for "pizzagate", after clearing browsing history, cookies, and when not being signed in to any services used by search engines to figure out your personal interests?

PeesInPools ago

I'm actually working on a piece about the search results of all the major browsers. But at the moment, whether or not I'm logged in, everything cleared, or browsing in private mode, I get the same results. Voat and pizzagate.com are even near the top in DuckDuckGo. Though it's possible that engines could loosely track and tailor based on your IP and user-agent. I haven't heard any precedent for that, but it's worth experimenting to see (I mean, no precedent in terms of different results for identical IP; many are aware of Google's horrible China censorship, etc). I'll look into adding proxy chains, geolocation and UA spoofing, and other variables to my research.

Keep in mind I'm not saying the major engines and social networks aren't actively censoring and removing results and accounts, or implying that the results you do currently get are in our favor. Nor am I trying to discount your great work with Snopes, which is a significant player.

MysticMa ago

We are a diversity of humanity who have come together, in a mission to expose truth for those who cannot speak. Holding those accountable who many reference as truth (such as snopes) is spot on. Thank You!

anonOpenPress ago

Well put, deserves a place in the post. Thank You Too!

Bigz_Sarducci ago

I always fact check Snopes.

anonOpenPress ago

This article, which actually should also be fact checked, does not manage to share a direct link between Snopes and CIA, but it does suggest that Snopes supports CIA with several (unfortunately mostly unsourced) examples. However, thanks for sharing, this might become relevant at some point. My first impression after reading was another set of mistakes in fact checking processes by Snopes.

oftotc ago

Dear PG submitters, this is a decent standard for a data-based study of facts surrounding PG. For future posts, if you want to be taken seriously, this is the bar. If you need assistance editing/formatting your discoveries, I bet that that journalism sub is filled with goats who would lend you some time.

anonOpenPress ago

Thanks, it's a rather fresh sub so really not filled with helpful journalists at least not yet, but I'm doing my best to help everyone in the meanwhile. I would not set any bars here myself, as this is an online community having individuals with very different skills and backgrounds. Other's not familiar with media criticism might instead be the ones with a writing style super-helpful for attracting sharing, etc.

However, your point for us to build a reliable set of posts here would be sooooo great. Unfortunately an impossible goal, but having just few more of those would already be great.

anonOpenPress ago

Has this article been fact checked anywhere?

damnittohell ago

LOL

DerivaUK ago

Well done and thank you.

AssFaceSandwich2 ago

That cat is not "unbiased" in that he hates lasagna AND Mondays. WTF, cat?!

HollandDrive ago

Snopes dopes.

eyeVoated ago

Just goes to show that the Truth cannot be covered up when people exercise the principle of Care.

Nice work!

Solentgreenispeople ago

Thanks for your work!