Activist news

Is SNOPES the Ultimate Propaganda Tool? Fact Checker BUSTED for Misleading Readers

(this is a repost of our last year lost article, however additional information has been found and is posted below)

We have all done it. Gone to Snopes.com to check whether or not a story running around on Facebook, Twitter or news articles is true, false or a mixture of both. Some people swear by Snopes and tend to base an entire argument over the ‘facts’ found on Snopes. Others question the validity, calling the site a Democratic political tool.

David and Barbara Mikkelson are the owners of Snopes.com. They created Snopes with the intention of it being a site to debunk urban legends such as UFOs. Along the way, it turned into a site to prove or debunk rumours of all kinds, from politics to viral scams such as a child born with no limbs, a head on backwards and needing money to fix that mess to missing children that actually do not exist. The range of what Snopes will ‘fact-check’ is never ending. They seem to always be on the latest viral sensation or latest political rumour.

Snopes.com employed a ‘fact checker’. The one who investigate, writes up the article and tells you if whatever topic is true, false, or a mixture. Her name is Kim Lacapria. She is not only their fact checker, but a rather colourful writer too.

This lady is a fraud. In this article she openly admits that she is a leftist.

And as an openly left-leaning individual myself, I share the befuddlement many liberal pundits and newsmen and women seem to express in working out, even now, how Obama may have “ignored” Benghazi or why we are supposed to be so angry that four Americans were tragically killed in an attack on a diplomatic entity in a dangerous zone — a circumstance that is tragic, but not a surprise.

She has a long online record of trashing those on the right and praising those on the left. Especially Tea Party members.

This lady is a fraud. In this article she openly admits that she is a leftist.

And as an openly left-leaning individual myself, I share the befuddlement many liberal pundits and newsmen and women seem to express in working out, even now, how Obama may have “ignored” Benghazi or why we are supposed to be so angry that four Americans were tragically killed in an attack on a diplomatic entity in a dangerous zone — a circumstance that is tragic, but not a surprise.

She has a long online record of trashing those on the right and praising those on the left. Especially Tea Party members.

She is clearly a huge fan of Bill Clinton’s, calling him the greatest president ever,  while at the same time raging on people for being disgusted at pedophile, Lena Dunham.

She moved on from the Inquistr and moved over to Snopes, where she has taken the reigns of political ‘fact checking’. However, everything she writes on at Snopes, is in defense of leftists and slams the right. Usually with very little ‘facts’ and more opinion. Highly manipulative opinion. She has taken on Hillary and Benghazi issues, whether or not Facebook censors Conservatives to most recently the Orlando massacre.

This broad is a total tool for for the Democrats. She is also a highly dangerous propaganda machine because so many people rely on it for their own fact checking. Interesting to note, Alexa, a site that keeps track of web traffic for websites, has categorized Snopes.com as…

While many have suspected that Snopes.com is a leftists propaganda site, we now have evidence that accusation is actually true. If you still use their site to fact check the latest rumour on Facebook, you may want to think twice and spend time doing your own fact checking. If you know someone who continually leans on Snopes for backing up their stance on any issue, you may want to share this with them!

David and Barbara Mikkelson have divorced, and David is currently married to Elyssa Young, 47, an administrative assistant at Snopes (who is also an escort, but who additionally has a background in politics. She ran for U.S. congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004). 

Kalev Leetaru, from Forbes, dared to ask David about the level of bias a Lib candidate could bring in fact checking (read his full article here).

David responded “It’s pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality.

If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

Comments

comments

Supporting

Donating to https://wikileaks.org/ makes the world a better place!

Like Us!

Belief

“It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there’s always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.” – Julian Assange

Copyright © ZigBall

To Top