What's your first thought when someone spreads an e-mail around the office claiming that Oprah is giving away a million bucks or that your penny-pinching state will no longer send out reminders about driver's license renewals?
Right: Better check Snopes.com to see if these things are true. (The first is not; the second is indeed, if you, like me, live in Massachusetts.)
Established in 1995, Snopes has long been the go-to site for running a rumor through the BS-detector, and its proprietors, David and Barbara Mikkelson, have assumed an almost mythic stature as the most authoritative discoverers of truth and falsity online.
But who's checking the fact checkers?
Last Friday it was a similar but more narrowly focused outfit, FactCheck.org, which is funded by the Annenberg Foundation and describes itself as "a nonpartisan, nonprofit 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." (Why not try something easier first, like say peace in the Middle East?)
Here's the essence of a chain e-mail that FactCheck.org decided to fact check: Is Snopes.com run by a "very Democratic" duo who long hid their true identities, rarely do any real research, and blatantly fabricated a tale about a State Farm Insurance agent just because he publicly opposed the election of President Obama?
No, no, no and no were the conclusions. Employing that age-old reporter's trick of contacting the primary source -- in this case, State Farm -- FactCheck.org was able to confirm that, yes, the insurance giant had asked agent Bud Gregg to stop using its brand name as his political soapbox. The group could find no evidence of political contributions or activism on the part of the Mikkelsons -- he's a former Republican turned independent; she's a Canadian who cannot vote.
"You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.
Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, "We apply the same debunking standards to both sides."
Of course, the reason Snopes.com is more often accused of bias by conservatives than by liberals is that facts have a notoriously liberal bias.
The FactCheck fact checkers found plenty of evidence that the Mikkelsons are serious if not obsessive researchers, not exactly a revelation to fans of the site. As for hiding their identities, the first of countless press mentions of Snopes dates back to a 1995 article in the Los Angeles Times that named David Mikkelson.
Bottom line: You can go on trusting Snopes.com as much as you'd trust any other source of information on the Internet (and, no, that's not meant to be back-handed).
Incidentally, the Mikkelsons make no claim to infallibility and insist that their highest objective is to help convince people to think critically about what they hear and read ... and to do their own fact checking.
Because you never know when someone will try to pull one over on you.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Reason No. 2 to resist filing a complaint with the FCC.
2009's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries.
Mich. lawmaker urges governor to rethink RFID in licenses
Melissa virus turning 10 ... (age of the stripper remains unknown).
Tweeting with "Star Trek" actor sparks kitchen fire?
40% of geeks surveyed admit to working ... how many hours?
A few clean words from the creator of Cursebird.
Want to close your LendingTree account? Sorry, no can do.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Snopes
I have been a fan since the beginning. They do a great job and I feel they are at least making an honest effort. More than can be said by many in this business.
Snopes reliable?
You're joking right? People still actually bother looking at Snopes? Last I checked, the vast majority of their medical and health claims were grounded in an obtuse herd mentality without the slightest regard for the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. It smelled like they were likely getting some "gifts" from the ADA and AMA. Personally, I wouldn't trust them to tell me what color an orange was.
Show one example of what you
Show one example of what you are saying and how it can be proven incorrect. Otherwise, you are either a foil-hatter or a troll.
Can you give an example of a health fact that they have wrong?
Can you please name what medial and health claims that are false?
It would help to figure out where they are going wrong.
They see me trollin, they
They see me trollin, they hatin.
Let me guess. You're one of those Homeopathic nutjobs.
I know it's hard living in a world governed by the physical laws of reality, but just because YOU want to believe that rubbing a crystal will cure cancer doesn't make it so.
Re: Snopes reliable
and by "herd mentality" you mean "evidence-based". Damn that herd of scientists
I agree
I completely agree with "Anon"... Snopes.com is a joke when it comes to facts, especially in their forum! Their "evidence" is based on how many regulars can chime in unison, regardless of what facts have been presented to them. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous amount of pop-up advertisements on the Snopes site - somebody should start a rumor that Snopes.com has more pop-ups than ANY site on the net, and then let them try and disprove it.
Judging Snopes by Forum Posts
Forums do not represent the views, editorial policy, or research methods of the sites that host them. By definition, they represent the views of its readers. If you try to attribute the views of the forum posters to the views of the publication, then the Washington Post believes that Barack Obama is simultaneously
1. A secret Muslim Manchurian Candidate who is somehow going to bypass congress and impose Sharia Law AND communism AND fascism all at once.
2. A 'Tax and Spend Liberal' whose goal is the total social and economic collapse of the united states so he can rebuild it into a godless, heathen, gay marrying, family destroying, libertine society with no moral values.
3. A brilliant man, and much needed source of reform and change that will battle valiantly against the evil forces of closed minded fascist republicans.
The astute among you will have noticed that these positions are mutually exclusive...
Hmm? Can't help but notice
Hmm? Can't help but notice that you haven't provided any facts or examples to support your contention that Snopes ignores facts and evidence. Or could it be that they just don't happen to agree with your preferred version of "the facts"?
Post new comment