Throughout this article the title Snopes refers to the website snopes.com Facebook’s new "fact checkers"
I have been working on re-organizing my files and found this 2016 "fact check" by snopes.com and had to post it since apparently I forgot I had filed it two years ago, and never wrote about it.
But since this is not a news article, it still maintains its relevance.
This is an example of what Snopes seems to consider a "fact check," and it is also representative of why I tell anyone who will listen that this organization CAN NOT be trusted as a source for truth. (Primarily anything to do with politics)
They are biased plain and simple in this writer’s opinion, and I think we will see that as this article unfolds. I have had other experiences with Snopes and their bias, as well, that I base my words on; this is not the first time I have written about them.
Remember, as we go through this that if you use Facebook, these are the people Mark Zuckerberg hired to do the fact checking for the entire platform. They are the ones who to a large extent decide what you get to see, and post. They are the censors.
This "fact check" is in regards to the Podesta Emails released by WikiLeaks where Bill Ivey, a senior policy fellow for Americans for the Arts and former Clinton Campaign member sent this email to Hillary Clintons former campaign manager John Podesta.
The following email was part of that major release of documents by WikiLeaks and one part in particular caused a shock wave through the political playground.
I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds pretty straight forward to me and a lot of people grabbed onto it and ran.
Alex Jones's InfoWars was one publication that offered their opinion of what Bill Ivey meant in that email and that opinion seems to be what spurred Snopes into action resulting in this "fact check" .on the InfoWars article.
InfoWars ( read the full article )
First off, this is an opinion, not a statement of fact, so I am curious as to why Snopes even felt the need to bother with it. People offer up opinions every minute of every day on the web, and I do not see Snopes pouncing on all of them.
So why this opinion? Something about it must have worried them or they would not have went through the trouble of trying to discredit it now would they?
People do things for reasons, and the MSM (main stream media) has become the flashing red light for what the truth is.
If the MSM starts attacking something then that means it scares them (which means it scares their handlers, the Marxists) and the rest of us need to pay close attention to what ever that is.
This is key, because as they say "the devil is in the details." If there is nothing being presented as fact then there is no reason to "fact check" it is there?
We already have a word for "fact checking" someone's opinions. Its called censorship— a violation of our first amendment right to free speech.
Secondly, as always, we will all have to make up our own minds on what we choose to believe, but personally, I read this pretty much the same way the guys at InfoWars (and many other publications) did especially given what we now know about how the Marxists operate. It fits like a glove.
Am I right? Who the hell really knows man, I am not a mind reader. Besides, in all actuality, it’s irrelevant to this article anyway because it is not what I am here to talk about.
We are talking about Snopes and what I see as a very shoddy and completely biased opinion (hit) piece being passed off as a fact check article. We are not here to discuss Bill Ivey's meaning behind his words.
So let’s get back to it and explore the anatomy of a hit piece by the folks at Snopes. Now keep in mind, InfoWars reputation, Bill Ivey's meaning, the context of the emails etc. etc. are irrelevant. All that matters here is how Snopes wrote this article.
It all starts with the title, and how they categorize what they are "fact checking" but first, what is fact check anyway? (1)
We have already established to my satisfaction anyway, that Paul Joseph Watson (the targeted articles author) was stating his opinion based on his interpretation of what Ivey was saying in his email to John Podesta. Not facts that would require verification. (2)
So right off the bat Snopes suggests that Paul Joseph Watson is lying by the very fact that they "fact checked" him in the first place. And to discredit him further before the reader even gets to the headline, they label his article a conspiracy theory.
And let’s look at that title— this is classic Snopes right here. We have seen it before. The only part of this title that was actually said by Watson in his article are the words ( compliant citizenry ). David Emery, the "fact checker" for this article, added the rest himself as an embellishment.
He then repeats this inaccurate statement in the ( claim ) part of the intro thereby giving ownership of saying it to Watson (and others). He follows this with a resounding condemnation of Watson’s article as a lie, which, of course, discredits Watson personally and damages his reputation over something he never said.
Oh yeah, another classic Snopes is the SEE EXAMPLES which only link you back to the article you are already reading. (3)
Remember, Watson never claimed this once in the entirety of his article. Suggesting he did is a lie in itself.
The next example of why this is a hit piece is as follows where Emery once again discredits Watson personally by suggesting he is nothing more than an alarmist who should simply be ignored. (4)
Note how Emery is now presenting his own words as belonging to not only Watson now, but several other publications as well by association.
He does manage to cover his ass though by adding the "proclaimed nothing short of" in front of his own words. Do we really think anyone noticed?
This is an attempt to validate his own lie by attaching it to multiple "sources." All unverified of course since there is NOT ONE LINK provided by Emery for the reader to verify anything from. Including Paul Joseph Watson’s article that they are supposedly "fact checking"
So now that Emery has done his best to discredit Watson’s article, and Watson himself as nothing more than an uninformed conspiracy theorist in the readers mind, he moves to sway the readers thoughts towards HIS explanation (opinion) of Ivey's words.
Note the wording in the following sentence. (5)
"A more objective reading..." Translation: Don't listen to that other guy, he is crazy and I am smarter than he is. In other words, character assassination, followed by Emery's personal opinion of what Bill Ivey was saying to John Podesta in that email
Now comes the pièce de résistance of this hatchet job by Emery. (6)
So to summarize, we have Paul Joseph Watson who writes an OPINION piece about what Bill Ivey said in an email to Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, during the 2016 election year..
For some reason this OPINION piece worried Snopes (or more likely their handlers) enough to "fact check" (the modern term for discredit) the article itself and Watson personally as the articles author..
After labeling Watson (and others) as a conspiracy theorist, (and later an alarmist), Emery manufactures a headline that will shock the reader and makes it sound like Watson said it, except he never says this throughout the entire article.
Remember, Emery did not even provide a link to Watsons (or any of the other mentioned publications) article(s) for the reader to even look at, let alone verify what he (Emery) was claiming is indeed true or false.
It’s a lie, and then he uses the "claim" section to put his words into Watson’s mouth because as we know, Watson never said these words.
Next, Emery attaches his words as coming from multiple other (alarmist) sources to add validity that they were indeed said by Watson in his article as well as bolster his claims of a conspiracy theory.
He is using a lie to validate his own lie since he provides no verifiable sources throughout this entire article. NONE
Explain to me how one "fact checks" something without providing their own VERIFIABLE FACTS to counter the claim that they claim is false?
Well, obviously for the folks over at Snopes, you give the author of the email Bill Ivey, the golden opportunity to "set the record straight" by rephrasing his words to fit a more acceptable meaning.
A do over plain and simple, and then Emery ends his hit piece by passing this re-phrased version of Ivey's words (complete with clarification mind you) off as being FACT which it is not by any stretch of the imagination. Not in the real world anyway.
Snopes discredits Watson, replaces his opinion with Emery's opinion based on what Bill Ivey explained ( after the fact, of course, ) was his TRUE meaning and calls it FACTS that prove what Watson said is false. All while providing zero evidence (actual facts) to back up anything they say.
That is not a fact check in my opinion my friends, that is a hit piece plain as day. And now that everyone who reads this knows what to look for in Snopes "fact checking" we will be able to spot it within other articles they claim are "fact check" articles. Keep your eyes open, but the first thing one has to do is put forth the effort to verify things for themselves. Don't be just another sheeple.
STEP AWAY FROM THE NOISE
As always this is my opinion of this issue based on the evidence I have listed throughout this article. My writings are never conclusions, they are invitations for people to debate both sides, and this is mine. All we accomplish by refusing to hear each other out and debate the issues, is the perpetuation of ignorance.
Truth is neither right nor wrong, good nor evil, it simply is. ~Ghost
Another example of Snopes creating headlines that the target never actually said.
This is an article about the article that first put Snopes on my radar. Note the Snopes Author.
From around the web: Other examples of Snopes being called out for questionable practices.