Any theories?
Two day’s ago, Snopes, the thoroughly disgraced and discredited fact-checking site that routinely covers for Democrats and progressives while spinning to attack conservatives and Republicans, posted a factcheck headlined, “No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists ‘Very Fine People.'”
I’ve written several posts about this persistent lie; it was in the original draft (in 2019) of the “The Big Lies Of The ‘Resistance’: A Directory” under Big Lie #4: “Trump Is A Racist/White Supremacist.” Before that, Ethics Alarms had posted in 2017 repeatedly about the Axis’s distortion of the Charlottesville riot; it was so long ago that I wasn’t even calling the “resistance”/Democrats/MSM propaganda trio “The Axis of Unethical Conduct”yet.
It would have been helpful if Snopes had weighed in then, but that would have undermined the Trump-smearing efforts of its supporters and allies. (Others have debunked this smear against Trump in the interim, such as CNN’s Jake Tapper. Joe Biden, for one, never stopped using it.)
So why is Snopes weighing in now? What earthly good is debunking a Big Lie after it has already sunk into the consciousness of the biased, gullible, lazy and Trump-Deranged? Does Snopes really think that by coming out with this in June of 2024, it gives the site a shred of the illusion of integrity? What’s its next factcheck going to be, Bill Clinton’s statement that he “did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?”
And, true to form (like, say, Quasimodo) Snopes still couldn’t do its ridiculously tardy factcheck straight. After stating that Trump did not say that neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, were “very fine people,” it adds in an “Editor’s Note”
Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump was wrong.
This is the quality of thought I expect from Snopes. Regardless of who organized and led the demonstration (which was completely legal and had a permit, unlike the counter-protesters who sparked the riot), its stated purpose was to protest the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue. As I wrote at the time, that was and is a legitimate point of view, and I might have joined in such a protest, since I strongly believe that tearing down statues of prominent figures from the Confederacy is wrong as well as a dangerous slippery slope, which indeed it has proven to be. I’m a very fine person, at least arguably. Unless Snopes has done a study of the relative “fineness” of everyone who marched with the neo-nazis and white supremacists in support of not “cancelling” an important and often honorable American, or can point to any of its sources that did so, its conclusion that “Trump was wrong” is itself unjustified.
And Facebook still uses these hacks to identify “misinformation.”
Ethics Alarms 
“Why Is Snopes Choosing Now to Factcheck a 2017 Axis Big Lie That Has Been Used Against Donald Trump for 7 Years?”
There’s an unseen purpose for what the political left and their supporters do. So now Snopes has gone out of their way to out this new factcheck I think I can reasonably predict that something being hidden in the wings. I think it’s very interesting that this came out just days before the Presidential debate between the President of the United States that openly promoted the bald-faced lie and the presidential candidate that the lie was trying to destroy.
Never forget that…
Their pattern shows us that we can be reasonably certain that there’s a hidden purpose and we won’t likely know about until they unleash it on the public.
It’s trending on Twitter, that’s why they’re covering it now.
If they were biased, wouldn’t they also refuse to debunk the claim now? Your analysis doesn’t make much sense.
Because Snopes always factchecks old stories that trend on Twitter? In fact, it NEVER does, until now. Snopes is WHY it’s trending on Twitter.
So, be honest: are you just another troll who is coming here to contradict everything I write? Because I don’t tolerate that for long.
The post does make sense for exactly the reasons I stated: there is no need to factcheck a lie that has been shown to be a lie over and over again, in many places and by many sources. Your snarky comment, however, only makes sense if you are visiting here in bad faith, with an agenda. This is your chance to be honest.
Big lies about Trump trend on Twitter constantly, and Snopes ignores them. My query stands: why this 7 year old, thoroughly debunked smear?
Oh…and Snopes IS biased; there’s no “if” about it, and I have documented its track record. And thus my question is validated by your question. They ignored it when it was everywhere, and when it was used by other public figures. Why address it now?
Yes they fact check things that happened long ago all the time. It’s not a news site. For example, you go on their site right now and their featured story has to do with a person who got shot in the head during the civil war.
Another story talks about something Bono said in 2006 but is currently trending on Twitter.
Snopes is not WHY it’s trending on Twitter why do you think that? Someone else posted about it and it got 4 million views. It had nothing to do with Snopes.
There is no need to factcheck a lie that has been shown to be a lie over and over again? Well that’s obviously not true since people spread false facts all the time. Even ones that have shown to be lies over and over again. It’s why Snopes exists, because people are stupid and believe stupid things.
Nope. Fake argument. Snopes checks “urban legends” about old events—that was how it got started. It may check a misstated or misrepresented version of a recent news event. That’s not what this was. It was a false representation of a Trump statement from 7 years ago that the media ran with, was repeatedly debunked, and should not be treated as if it’s something new needing Snopes’ verdict. Snopes endorsed the false framing of Trump’s “bloodbath” statement, saying that his meaning was “ambiguous.” It wasn’t ambiguous. But it took that one on almost immediately.
Stupid people trust Snopes. It has a long, long dossier on Ethics Alarms, and as I mentioned (but you didn’t) it even botched this supposed effort to defend Trump with the site’s ridiculous assertion that there were no “fine people” marching to protest the toppling of Lee’s statue, a text-book example of guilt by association.
End of discussion. I’ll decide after your next choice of topic whether you’re really interested in these issues or just here to argue with me.
This sounds like you don’t want me to respond if I’m going to disagree with you.
What’s up with that? I’m challenging you because you’re saying things that are false. You said this doesn’t need to be treated as if it’s something new needing Snopes’ verdict, but again, it’s TRENDING NOW on Twitter. That’s why they posted about it.
I just gave you an example of them covering things that are recently trending in the rumor mill but happened a long time ago. Like the claim about Bono that says he said every time he claps a black person dies in Africa.
There’s no difference between this and the Trump rumor that’s currently trending.
1. No, I don’t need trolls who just hang out here to challenge me.
2. I said nothing that’s false. Snopes does not present new fact checks of settled issues that have been well-publicized repeatedly. Your examples are not legitimate analogies. Different in kind.
3. Who decided “trending now on Twitter” is a criteria for treating a 7-year-old, debunked lie like it just happened?
4. The Bono story, from a concert 14 years ago, wasn’t news, wasn’t widely covered, didn’t involve anything of substance or a widely publicized statement by the President of the United States. It was about a silly incident at a concert in Scotland. I never heard about it: most people didn’t. Terrible analogy. Not in the same ballpark or the same planet. After 14 years, a rumor completely misrepresented an obscure non-news event, and there is no easily available authority to disprove it. That’s exactly the kind of thing Snopes is good for. The Charlottesville smear has none of those features.
5. If you can find a real example of Snopes doing what it did regarding Charlottesville, I’ll happily revise my position. I put this episode along side its “factchecking” Babylon Bee satires.
”Snopes does not present new fact checks of settled issues that have been well-publicized repeatedly.”
They obviously do because they do it all the time and they’re doing it now.
This is also self defeating, because this is obviously not “settled” since it’s trending on Twitter and millions of people believe it. It’s misinformation. Isn’t it good they’re debunking it?
I feel like you just say things don’t count as evidence if you don’t like the evidence. That’s not how this works.
Look, all I’m saying is that this post doesn’t make much sense.
You’re using an example of Snopes debunking an old, idiotic story, something they do all the time, as evidence of bias. AND on top of this, they’re debunking a “Big Lie” against Trump!
These facts prove the total opposite of what you’re intending to prove.
I’m not attempting to “prove” anything, except what happened: Snopes dredged up a story that is not an urban myth, not anything in need of debunking, not current and not useful. Anyone can google Trump’s statement on Charlottesville in less time than it takes to send a tweet.
“They obviously do because they do it all the time and they’re doing it now.” You really want to stand on that? You haven’t shown they “do it all the time,” because you can’t find a parallel example, and the fact that “they’re doing it now” is the point.
Nowhere in the piece do I say or suggest that Snopes doing this is evidence of bias. Read it. I did say that its “editor’s note” represented poor “quality of thought” and that its stupidity was “true to form,” but he word “bias” is never used in reference to Snopes. It is in lots of other posts, but not this one. So you’re trying to argue against something I never asserted and wasn’t intending to assert, except that—no, I don’t trust Snopes, I don’t trust its motives, and “because it’s trending on Twitter” is not a convincing explanation.
And look! I’m not the only Snopes-watcher who finds the timing of the factcheck “bizarre”! What a coinky-dink! The author here thinks this helps Trump, I suppose the way Snopes saying that what goes up must come down validates Newton.
“Democrats have been repeating that misleading narrative for years. This should have happened long ago.” It DID happen long ago, just not from Snopes. But if Snopes was going to enter the fray, the time to have done it was…long ago. As I said. Clearly.
Zero need to defend yourself. You gave him more rope than he deserved.
There are some topics where we disagree… yet I don’t think I’ve ever come close to a ban. Why? Because I’m not a nitwit who pounds the repetitive point over and over again.
NOTICE of EA BANNING: “Andy” is banned. He revealed himself to be a pure troll, but wouldn’t admit it when I gave him a chance, or prove other wise by dropping an argument he was treating as a dog treats a bone when I directed him to. As is usually the case, he didn’t debate in good faith, and began insulting me. I could have tolerated him a bit longer, but frankly, I’m hot, I’m tired, I’m not sleeping well, I hate living alone in a big house without Grace, and I’ve got lots to do: I don’t need this jerk making me wince every time I have to check the blog.
AGAIN, if he sneaks back on for a brief period (as they always do), don’t reply to him, because if you issue a masterpiece, it will vanish when Andy’s lament gets sent to SPAM Hell.
He was definitely a candidate for the Southeast Asian geography lesson.
“There’s no difference between this and the Trump rumor that’s currently trending.”
Are you that obtuse.
If Snopes was a legitimate fact checking organization it would have validated the assertion when it happened. This assertion was the centerpiece of the Biden 2020 campaign for president. In fact he said, that the Charlottesville statements made him run.
I believe Snopes is simply trying to inoculate itself against claims of fact checking bias before the debates. The damage was done so no need to keep the lie going. For them it is time to distance themselves from their abetting of the proliferation of the original lie.
I believe Snopes is simply trying to inoculate itself against claims of fact checking bias before the debates. Of course. I should have been able to figure that out myself—it’s as if Trump came out tomorrow and said, “Of course Barack Obama was born in the US: how could anyone think otherwise? He’s as American as apple pie!”
You hit on the point I was really stumbling over. Why now?
Your explanation makes total sense.
Snopes is giving its inevitable fact checks of Trump at Thursday’s debate more perceived credibility with this high-profile fact check that is favorable to him. Trump will complain about Snopes’ post-debate fact check and the response will be “just a few days ago, you were praising Snopes…”
exactly
100%. It is the same reason Hunter had to go to trial. So the uninformed and/or lazy thinkers can say, “Look! The justice system works! You are just a crazy conspiracy theorist for thinking there may be a problem.” And unfortunately I am seeing that play out in real time over here with friends and family… Ugh.
Yes, Joe Biden is intentionally letting his son get sent to prison by his own DOJ so that he could pretend to be respectful of the law; this makes a lot more sense than just accepting that he is respectful of the law. The ones who can’t see this are the crazy ones.
if I had to venture a guess, most likely the management at that site knows which way the political wind is blowing and does not want to be targeted as part of the resistance if the election goes the way a lot of them think it is going to go.
It was a 2016 internet search on Snopes’ deception that first brought me to EA. When the father of the Florida nightclub shooter appeared right behind Hillary at a rally, a Snopes piece declared that “…neither party stated or implied that any invitation had been extended to him…”. Trouble was, the still they used in the header was from a videoed talk with a reporter where Matteen clearly says “I was invited by democratic party“.
At that time, Snopes still accepted and answered comments, and this was pointed out to them. The article remains as it was to this day.
They are scum.
The “Editor’s Note” is the thing. It essentially let’s them get the issue back into the public eye as they pretend to debunk the claim, and then come back with “But yeah, he really did say that, since nobody on that side could have possibly been anything other than a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.”
Yes, Andy ducked that little detail repeatedly. Didn’t “fit the narrative…”