Snopes.com

Let’s face it, there’s a lot of misinformation floating around the Internet. Where does one turn to sift the fact from the fiction? For years, I have relied on Snopes.com as an impartial authority on urban legends, e-mail hoaxes, etc.

But now I’ve had a couple of experiences where my conservative friends have sent me alarming e-mail reports, which I’ve checked on Snopes.com, found to be false – and then they’ve come back to me with more e-mails that Snopes.com isn’t to be trusted because it has liberal leanings.

The latest e-mail alarm stated that Obama had redecorated the Oval Office, removing its patriotic red, white and blue décor – and replacing it with “with middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and décor.” I checked out this report on Snopes.com and found that it was false. As Snopes.com pointed out, the picture that supposedly proved the redecorating of the Oval Office was of the East Room in the White House. And all you have to do is check the website whitehousemuseum.org to see that red, white and blue was not the color scheme of the Oval Office under any president of the last 70 years, except perhaps John F. Kennedy. I sent the Snopes.com link to this friend.

But instead of acknowledging the error of the e-mail she had sent me, my friend sent me another e-mail copying an attack on Snopes.com. I’ll reproduce that below (with commentary), but before I do, consider that Snopes.com is widely respected as an honest source of information, as witness recent articles by:

The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/technology/personaltech/15pogue-email.html?_r=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html

The National Review(!)
http://old.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp

Reader’s Digest
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/article122216.html

Congress.org (“…a nonpartisan news and information Web site devoted to encouraging civic participation. Our mission is to provide information about public policy issues of the day and tips on effective advocacy so that citizens can make their voices heard.”)
http://www.congress.org/news/2009/11/30/six_tips_from_snopescom_on_ emails

FactCheck.org (“…A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.”)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

And TruthOrFiction.com (a competing urban legends research site)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

Sure, it takes only a few minutes of research to find plenty of websites that vilify Snopes.com -- but who are they? What are their credentials? What is their history? And are they any less prejudiced than they claim Snopes.com to be?

But in the final analysis, who is on your side doesn’t matter. Snopes.com documents their findings – naming names, giving website address, citations for articles, etc. If you don’t believe them, check their sources.

Here’s how the people at Snopes.com answer this key question, “How do I know that the information you’ve presented is accurate?” “We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”

The e-mail I’ll reproduce below attacks Snopes.com on the grounds that the people behind the site are liberal. What if they are? (They’re not; see the online articles cited above.) Does that mean that their facts can’t be checked? Is no information acceptable unless it comes from people who agree with you politically and confirms your strongly held opinions?

Enough. Here’s the e-mail, with my comments in bold.

(received via e-mail 8/5/10; typos left uncorrected)

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. (Snopes says they get their funding from advertising and occasional small contributions. What is your evidence of an additional, undisclosed source?) The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. (Any proof of a connection between this organization and Snopes?) The Democratic Alliance has been reported (by whom?) to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

For the past few years (www.snopes.com) has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. (What if there were no one “behind” it? How could you prove the absence of a sinister backer?) It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. (They’ve been at it since 1995. Does experience count? Is special training required to make phone calls, do Internet research and tell truth from falsehood? Would you really trust a team of lawyers?)

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. (No one’s perfect, but is what follows below the only evidence that they’ve been proven wrong?) Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. (Criticisms by whom? And over what issues?)

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville (Mandeville is in Louisiana, and your firm is where?) hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. (No one disputes that the sign went down. Did Bud Gregg just change his feelings about Obama?) I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. (This is nothing more than “he said, she said.” Who could Gregg have contacted at this gigantic firm who could say with assurance that Snopes.com had never contacted anyone there?)Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' (their report doesn’t use words like these) on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned (By whom? Where is the evidence?) the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. (But of course, conservatives don’t have a “purpose agenda” to discredit anything liberal.) There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock? (Who are these people, and what is their reasoning?)

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. (Not bad advice.) Plus, you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! (If you could give one example, it would be helpful, so people could check and draw their own conclusions.) I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal (“Flaming” shows a bit of bias. Do you mean someone other than the Mikkelsons? Can you name a name?) and this man is in the tank for Obama. (Do you mean that anyone who supports Obama is inherently untrustworthy?) There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. (Got any examples? Do you automatically believe everything you see on video? Have you heard of the recent Dept. of Agriculture fiasco created by blogger Andrew Breitbart and falsely accusing Shirley Sherrod?) So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever (Really? Ever?) for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. (Who do you trust?)

A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me about Snopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research (Is all this the fruit of your “research”?) to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. (What convinced you? Do you think your simple assertion is convincing me?) Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

Thank you,
Alan Strong
Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Suite 200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039

Me again. This is nothing more than a rant, with minimal evidence. There is certainly nothing here to conclusively discredit Snopes.com. In fact, there are numerous versions of this “letter” floating around the Internet. One is at this website: http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/2010/05/snopes-exposed.html#ixzz0osKwmKIs. And you can check this link to see what Snopes.com itself says about the Bud Gregg issue: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp.

It’s easy to spread lies via e-mail; it’s not so easy to check them out. Read critically, look for facts, check them out, look for prejudice, be wise. Most of these alarming e-mails are sent out by liars who are trying to manipulate the gullible. Of course, they want to try to discredit the truth-tellers. Are you committed to believing the liars just because they’re telling you what you want to hear?