What does pol think about Snopes?

(((Who))) runs Snopes and why should we trust them?

File: Charlamanegetthecalvary.png (286KB, 300x600px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 300x600px

>>128694669
Snopes is full of shit. Anyone paying attention to their shenanigans during Trumps 2016 campaign knows that for a fact.

>>128694669

look at the owner of Snopes and authors.


Protip: you guess it right. They are kikes.

>>128694669
Guy who runs Snopes embezzled a ton of money from his company, blew it on hooker's and cocaine and then hired his new pornstar wife to be a hoax buster with him.

Doesn't sound like anyone I want to learn from

>snopes
They should have just stuck to debunking urban legends and coca-cola myths.

>>128694932

Sadly this.

>>128694669
Snopes has been politically biased for over a year now.

>>128694669

Snopes is a pile of shit.

If they weren't, they would at least allow commenting.

>CNN themselves said its real
>therefor it's real

Wow great job

snopes went from
>is this urban legend true?
to
>"We have proclaimed ourselves your number one news verification site."

>>128695269
this. snopes is trash.

>>128695269

Onion did the same shit.

Thanks Clinton donors, for shitting up everything.

>Snopes
Like Politifacts, Snopes will say true things are "false" just because they don't fit their biases and their political narrative.

Case in point, the story in the OP: their main logic for calling the story "false" was that the people accused of wrongdoing said they didn't do wrong. Imagine if courts worked like that. "How do you plea?" "Not guilty, your honor." "GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME CASE CLOSED." They called the story false because the story was hurting liberal media., which goes against their liberal politics.

>>128695269
They also used to actually put work into their investigations and give good, solid, factually true reasons for why they called a story true or false. At some point, they realized people don't really read the article, they just look at the verdict, and figured they could use this to spin a narrative that aligns with their politics.

>Did CNN stage this coverage?
FALSE: they do it all the time!

Thanks, snopes

>((((Snopes))))

The real issue was never that there weren't real protestors at the event, it's that they deliberately filmed them and set them up in a way to support their agenda, which of course is no different than any propaganda filmmaking. What's more, Snopes has no way of knowing precisely what kinds of communication the producers had with the protestors or with local activists, and there's plenty there that suggests it was at least partially for the benefit of their broadcast, so I don't see how it's a huge leap to call it staged or how Snopes can with such confidence call the idea 'false.'

>>128694669
They're fine when it comes to backgrounds of internet viral shit normies like. But they use that trust to lie about anything related to politics in favor of leftist agendas. Very insidious people.

File: 1483503535724.jpg (88KB, 920x960px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 920x960px

>>128696183
underrated

File: pepe.jpg (8KB, 335x186px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 335x186px

I researched a little on them once .originaly they are a husband and wife team based in Canada working out of their house .With no formal investigative training.Guy separated from his wife. I found them to lean left on their reports. I would not trust them to be unbiased.

File: pol_right.jpg (129KB, 1235x486px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1235x486px

I always thought /pol/ was being ridiculous by calling Snopes left-wing propaganda.

I'm sorry. /pol/ is always right, and I will never trust them at face value again.

>>128697121
I'm proud of you, anon. You're growing up so well.

>>128694669

Look at a picture of the guy who runs Snopes. You'll never trust it again