Are Snopes, PolitiFact, Politico and FactCheck fair and balanced? Do they deserve our trust?
The Bias Found in Snopes,
PolitiFact, Politico and Factcheck.org
Snopes, PolitiFact, Politico and FactCheck are online reference sources that many people have come to depend on for researching the facts of an issue, but are they reliable. I want to be upfront, I am a Conservative. I cherish the Constitution and want to see it upheld. The Libertarian and Tea Party perspectives are more agreeable to me everyday. Sometimes I do have disagreements with other Conservatives, one fine example is on the issue of mass transit. I want to see more of it and Michael Medved does not, but most of the time we are in accord. As for those on the Left, I will hear the argument and most likely challenge it. That people with viewpoints from either the Left or Right can respectfully serve to exercise the others intellect and safeguard accountability is a good thing, because the truth should be the goal of both, but I am against extremes, Right or Left.
I appreciate and value the individual, an inheritance from Judeo Christian principles. Collectivism, or more correctly ‘control through the collective’ is an ideology that I strongly appose. There, simple and straight forward. No one is value free. Fair examination and review is all that I ask from my sources and try to deliver to my readers and yes, I do have opinions which I admit are generous. Individuals, groups or organizations that are known to serve interests hostile to the safety and security of the American people and to the West as a whole are red flags that I will call out and denounce.
I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that does not have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular. E.B. White
Several popular websites that investigate and answer questions about urban legends, myths, rumors and claim to correct misinformation are FactCheck.org, Politifact, Politico and Snopes. Following are my conclusions about each.
The Bias of Factcheck.org
FactCheck.org – Is a biased, politically motivated propaganda site operated and owned by the Annenberg Foundation, which is the same organization that groomed Barack Obama through his ACORN community organizing days in Chicago, under the guidance of his mentors Bill Ayers and Ayer’s wife Bernardine Dohrn. These are the same two scumbags of the radical Marxist-Leninist/anti-imperialism New Left known as the Weather Underground, which was formed in 1969. This group went on a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, and took part in actions such as the jailbreak of Timothy Leary and the ‘Days of Rage’. As they grew older they never repented of their past, instead they earned degrees and teach, of all insults, Law. Though founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative, when he died, his family turned much of the Foundation’s power and influence to the far left. That FactCheck.org declared that in the course of their own investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate their staffers,
Have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. FactCheck.org
So it is fair to conclude that unless you hate our constitutional Republic and dream of global Communism, FactCheck.org is a joke.
The Bias of Politico
Politico – Often cites Media Matters (big Red Flag) as it’s source, which is very problematic. Media Matters claims to be:
A web based, non profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation” in print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets across the United States. Such “misinformation” includes “news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. mediamatters.org/about
Now lets translate this into useful terms with more information from Wikipedia:
- Self-described “Progressive/Marxist” media “monitor” that tracks “conservative misinformation” and supplies the correct information/viewpoint.
- A creation of Democratic Party funders and operatives, and of former Conservative writer David Brock.
- Dictates the content of many mainstream media reports and smears Conservatives as liars and racists.
- Contends that Conservatives dominate the mainstream media, which is a lie!
- Is funded and supported by the billionaire philanthropist George Soros, another Big Red Flag!
- Has regular contact and strategy sessions with political operatives inside the Obama White House.
- Has collaborated with Attorney General Eric Holder’s office in an effort to discredit and suppress news stories about scandals plaguing the Justice Department.
Media Matters has also been identified as a constituent member of a network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize money to get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives that advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide what was once a noble Democratic Party ever further towards the Left.
The Bias of Snopes
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson are a husband and wife team from southern California, so if they are Liberals I would not be suprised, nor do I care, as long as their work shows integrity. After all, I am a Conservative, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Furthermore, I have found no evidence to support critics who claim that they receive financial support from any other source then the ads on their website. However, Snopes.com should not be given equal authority with what are supposed to be professionally trained news organizations with big budgets like the Associate Press (AP), CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Yet, some leading news organizations to include Fox and National Review have cited Snopes as a definitive source for details and accuracy. Good for Snopes, but only a lazy news organization would look to others to do their job for them.
The urban legends-debunking Web site Snopes.com has a page devoted to exposing the false claim that Red Bull contains a banned substance linked to brain tumors. 1 Oct. 2006, Fox News
Did you hear that a contestant on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”couldn’t decide if an elephant or the moon was larger? It never happened. According to Snopes.com, one of the best myth-busting sites, the photo that accompanies the bogus e-mail is also a hoax — digitally altered to validate the bogus story. 1 April 2007, MSNBC
Snopes began as a purely urban-legends site in 1995, run out of the couple’s home in the Los Angeles suburbs. But especially since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, it’s become an invaluable resource for sifting through political and media facts and fallacies.
Anyone, but especially reporters, should check out Snopes before passing on a story that seems too good to be true. 21 July 2004, National Review
Having said that, I am in serious disagreement with their claim that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is not a forgery, and have rebutted the arguments with my own article on the matter. Snopes, like so many others seems to be confused about the term “natural born citizen” as it relates to eligibility for presidential candidacy, and “native born” another issue that I meticulously researched for my article, “Barack Obama, The Illegal President”. However, one of the more disturbing statements made by Snopes on their last update of this subject (22 July 2012) concerns the findings of Sheriff Arpaio as nothing more than recycled arguments from Mara Zebest that had already been debunked.
The March “Cold Case Posse” investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate conducted by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio produced no new evidence demonstrating that document to be a forgery.
Snopes links to an article by well known Obama birth defender and Fogbow Obot, Frank Arduini to dismiss all claims made by Adobe expert Mara Zebest against the authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificate as posted on the White House website in 2011, because,
The document she is analyzing was not created in Adobe Photoshop. Response To Zebest, Frank Arduini, www.scribd.com
Then Snopes provides another link from a blogger named Matthew Hendley who seems to scrutinize the activities of Sheriff Arpaio in a number of different articles. On this I am not critical, Hendley has a right to keep tabs on whoever he wants and it is always in the public interest to question authority, but we must strive to be fair. Having said this, I intend to find one good thing to say about Barack Obama someday, even if he is a fraud. That Snopes claims that Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse found nothing new in their investigation concerning Barack Obama’s birth certificate is not true because Arpaio took his case to the Alabama Supreme Court, which basically passed the buck on to Congress.
Unlike Politico and FactCheck.org, I did see some balance and integrity in Snopes. Moreover, in the past I gave them some credit for professional and unbiased investigation, their list of Obama’s 50 lies (they gave up after 50) is a riveting read:
However, now I have some serious concerns about their “unbiased professionalism.” Recently, I found out that in 2010, Dr. Ron Polland discovered an article published by Snopes on 21 April 2008, that not only declared Barack Obama birth to have taken place in Kenya, but that proof existed in hospital documents and witnesses. Moreover, Snopes not only refuted his constitutional eligibility to campaign as a presidential candidate, but cast doubts on his citizenship status altogether.
Polland suggests that at that time the Mikkelson’s may have been supporters of Hillary Clinton and were,
not actively engaged in covering up and playing tag team partner with FactCheck.org and other sites who are now active protecting and covering up Obama’s lies about his nativity narrative like they are now with their so called “fact check” articles. Ron Polland, 29 July 2010, Birther Report
In all fairness Polland’s conclusions are only speculation. Yet, I cannot help but wonder, if the Mikkelson’s are aware of the strong evidence that supports bold accusations that the 2008 Democratic Primary was actually stolen from Hillary Clinton by the Obama, Chicago style political machine?
Can this article still be found on the Wayback Machine?
What is the Wayback Machine, you ask?
The Wayback Machine is a tool that allows users to surf those archived versions of web pages. Visitors to the Wayback Machine can enter a website address, select a date, and then begin surfing on an old version of that web site. Unfortunately, the article can no longer be found in the archives of the Wayback Machine. Perhaps since that time the Mikkelson’s decided to use their own dedicated server, but again, that is only speculation on my part. In any case, Dr. Polland took a snap shot of the Snopes article, which appears 8 min. into the story beautifully packaged and wrapped in a bow, enjoy!
Ok, even Snopes let me down, but I have never relied on them to answer my questions or satisfy doubts that I had on issues that concerned me anyway. I have always used their site to find counter arguments to my own findings and to get leads. Sometimes we come to the same conclusion, sometimes we do not. I do my own homework, because freedom isn’t free, it is work!
On the other hand, PoliticoPolitifact and FactCheck.org cannot be trusted as anything but agenda driven propaganda machines for the interests of the far Left. So unless you are blind or have no use for your right eye, don’t waste your time with them. I once more turn to Dr. Polland, who will also cover PolitiFact to make this a little easier to digest. If you want to know more about him and his work you will find it here in my Library.
The Bias of Politifact
(included in videos)
So to answer the question, can Snopes, FactCheck, Politico and PolitiFact be trusted?
Unfortunately, in order to control spam, it has become necessary to require registration before any comments can be taken seriously. Furthermore, though I am very interested in what you have to say, only comments that are relevant and edifying to the article will be posted.
For more information: