I had to respond to a post attacking Trump in FB and when I searched for a link, I found this Snopes link. This shows just how dishonest Snopes is. If you look at the title it says that Trump's claim that he didn't say those things is false. Yet, if you scroll down the page a little, they drop off the"didn't" which makes the truth just the opposite of what the title claims. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/ I've seen other times Snopes has played with words to make it easier for people to come to a false conclusion.
Snopes was created to validate leftist ideological and political propaganda through just such subtle ways of lying. I know educators who used to allow students to use Snopes as argument validation on research papers; but once they realized what Snopes routinely did, they forbade the site's use.
I KNOW READ!!!!! Geez. You are complaining about the need to read more than a headline? Really explains the success of Faux News and their associates.
Snopes leans left and is very sketchy with what they call facts or proof. They’re barely above CNN sometimes with their interpretations of words being called lies.
Obvious I read it or I would not have noticed it. However, snowflakes who only read titles are much more likely to be fooled with this type of Koolaid.
Your complaint is not about people who read. It's about your fellow travellers who read only the headline. Thus the success of Faux News and your other favorite outlets. AND "conservatives'" problems with Snopes and similar services lie not in what Snopes says, but in 'conservatives' constant lying, and getting caught.
Wow, what a post fail!! It's documented fact that people, especially young people, only read headlines. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jayson...article-without-even-reading-it/#22871d622a64 A recent study confirmed this phenomenon isn’t in our heads; in fact, 59 percent of all links shared on social networks aren’t actually clicked on at all, This fact is how the fake news ministry of the New Democratic Party rallies the gullible.
The title is "Donald Trump Didn’t Say Vets with PTSD Are ‘Weak" so it's you with the fake news - there is no mention of the claim that he didn't say those things is false. Ad this is the claim to be fact checked "Donald Trump said veterans suffering from PTSD are "weak," "unfit," and "can't handle" military service." which they concluded was mostly false. So even when they defend Trump, you claim victimhood
This article appears to differ from Snopes’ standard format for their fact-check articles but it’s arguably in Trumps favour. All the rest I glanced at had headlines in the format of an open question so you’d expect this one to be “Did Trump say Vets with PTSD are weak?”. Specifically establishing the rating in the title appears to be unique in this case and questionable given the rating is only “Mostly False”. The claim being presented in the body in the positive appears to be standard across the board and surely they have to do that to discuss what the claim is. That is immediately followed by their rating and then the full discussion so I don’t see how it could be considered misleading.
Uhh.. no... the claim being fact checked is not a claim made by Trump, but a claim made about Trump. The article concludes that the claims being made by Occupy Democrats and the Washington Post are false. To understand how a snopes article works, it is what is listed under the section titled "claim" that is being fact checked. The statement that is listed as the "claim" reads: ^^^That is the claim that is being fact checked, and ruled false, NOT the title of the article.
This is the same hysterical nonsense the Trump know nothings love. Snope says the claim is false so they need to discredit the source for....What? Can't take yes for an answer. What the hell do they want? The ultimate right to edit? What is their news source? They will NEVER answer that simple question that I have asked many times. These people are sick.
It doesn't take a genius to see they dropped the word "didn't" from the title and thus change the meaning of the article. If you are like so many snowflake Millennials who only read the title, you would come away with a false conclusion. I just ran into the same thing with my nephew's liberal friend where he only read the first sentence of my post and ran with that even though the very next sentence said I agreed with him.
My god, you still don't get it! If they only read the title then they would see ""Donald Trump Didn’t Say Vets with PTSD Are ‘Weak" . So what are you complaining about? Are you maintaining that Trump did say that "Vets with PTSD are weak"?
Donald Trump Didn’t Say Vets with PTSD Are ‘Weak’ Donald Trump said veterans suffering from PTSD are "weak," "unfit," and "can't handle" military service. These two statements can't both be either true or false at the same time.
Snopes has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited as a reasonable source of information. Had it not been so flagrantly dishonest and fallacious in so much of its fact checking, it could have perpetuated the "fact-checking" scam on the public much longer. As always, the LW underestimates the intelligence of the average voter and overplays its hand. Seen dozens of times a day on this forum. Same for fact check, politifact and all other "fact-checking" organs of the Complex MSM.
Did you even read my post #12? Have you looked at any of the similar fact-check articles on Snopes to see how they compare with this one? It is different, but not in the way you’re talking about.
Only thing about Snopes is they typically source their claims. You can always validate their claim from their sources if you choose. They may be leftists in their choice of investigations, but I haven’t found much they are dishonest about.
It's not the sourcing of the claims that is dishonest usually, it's the perpetual, obvious fallacies and semantic games they engage in. Snopes and any of the other mainstream "fact-checking" sites are not credible sources for information. They are ridden with 101 textbook informal logic fallacies. One dishonest formula they engage in frequently: 1. find an atypically phrased claim of the "fact" being checked towards a straw man. 2. Ignore other more reasonably phrasings that would make it harder to get to the desired result. 3. "Fact check" towards the desired, biased conclusion by knocking down the straw man.
Remember, it's not snopes that is necessarily biased towards the left, it's facts and reality. Obviously, you shouldn't source it in research paper other than to say snopes says ___ , you should never rely on any one source of information, but like wikipedia, it's generally pretty good. Never mind that trump has never shown any real respect to anybody who serves or has served.
