Anyone else get this email about Snopes?

[Hepburn]

For years, many, including myself, who send email, have used Snopes.com to authenticate stories circulating on the internet. I began to suspect that they had an affiliation with the Dem. Party and liberal causes, because of their "slant" on certain stories regarding Democrats and Obama in particular. Here's more on the revelation that they are tied to liberal causes.

========================

FYI


When I saw that Snopes dot com had falsley claimed that Obama's Birth Ceritificate had been properly validated I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both. This piece explains further. dd


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. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. 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. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? 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. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville 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.

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 no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet,snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned 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. 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?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'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. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

:eyes:

[hobbit709]

1. Bovine metabolic byproducts.

This part here is the giveaway.
When I saw that Snopes dot com had falsley claimed that Obama's Birth Ceritificate had been properly validated I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both. This piece explains further. dd
I believe the Supreme Court and other courts have ruled on this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. Even World Nut Daily has verified Obama's birth certificate.

Not that I consider them a reliable source, but I thought the Freepers did!

[WeDidIt]

41. And Now, World Nut Daily is dfeeding the Birther frenzy

I think it's the only audience they have now.

[BurtWorm]

2. Didn't George Carlin write that?

;-)

[sharp_stick]

40. I thought it was John Cleese n/t

[rudy23]

3. The Republican Email Channel is trying to take out their biggest debunker

The usual cast of characters will believe this, and now have a big weapon in their arsenal against those of us who send their chain emails back to them with the appropriate snopes.com link attached.

[tangent90]

4. Well, they certainly aren't infallible (as if anyone is) but I don't buy the 'liberal bias' charge.

It's no secret the rightwing loves to bitch about the 'librul media' which anyone with a brain knows is bullshit.

[alfredo]

5. We need to have ready info to show that Obama's birth certificate is valid.

[NewJeffCT]

6. sounds like BS to me

but, I have not gotten the email.

[lob1]

7. I checked with Snopes. They say it's not true.

I'm lying. I have no idea if it's true or not.

[noiretextatique]

8. every time i research something at snopes

i see a name at the end of the article...usually it's Barbara Mikkelson.
dumbass :eyes:

[tabatha]

9. See this discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4816622

They appear to be right-leaning libertarians.

[ContinentalOp]

10. Pretty brilliant actually.

What can Snopes do, debunk it? But they're untrustworthy EXTREME LIBERALS! Scary.

[babylonsister]

11. Oh, brother. If they weren't liberal, they'd be what this author is,

and I know which allegiance I prefer. This person doesn't have enough to worry about?

And no, I don't recall getting this.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Funny, Snopes has had an update about that email you got on the original story since Oct. '08.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp

[BuyingThyme]

24. Thank you.

[HughBeaumont]

13. Conservatives get their assholiness put in check and now it's an "AGENDA".

Here's an idea. Return to accountability and the rule of law. Stop being self-centered, racist, homophobic, greedback fascist assholes. Stop thinking everything revolves around the rich white man. Stop blaming "womens, blacks and teh gays" for your problems. Stop sending out fearmongering e-mail and boilerplate fantasy. America isn't buying what you're selling anymore. Think of something new to sell. Or just plain THINK. I know that's difficult, but TRY.

[NewJeffCT]

21. well, I said in a recent LTTE

If somebody in the media doesn't bow down & worship and praise the Republicans, the conservatives will scream liberal media bias...

[cynatnite]

14. So, if snopes proves something is bogus, the righties can claim lib'rul bias. n/t

[TahitiNut]

37. Well, to be fair, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

:shrug:

[Theobald]

15. First off you need to proceed with caution whenever

you get information from a website or from anywhere else for that matter. For the most part I think snopes does a great job of researching and I have yet to find something where they were wrong, but I'm sure they have been wrong; after all we all make mistakes.

With regards to Obama's eligibilty to be POTUS, there is no doubt that he is a natural born US citizen and therefor can and is President of the United States. The unfounded belief that he is not eligible is almost as crazy as believing the Pentagon was hit by a missle and the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

[tangent90]

27. There is a fairly vociferous contingent here on DU that believe the controlled demolition theory

with every bit as much blind faith as the 6000 year old earthers believe theirs. :D

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. Nobody can say for a fact that they saw God create the earth 6000 years ago.

But you can say for a fact that the towers collapsed exactly like any other professionally imploded building, and that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but thermite does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. LOL

I can say for a fact that all life evolved on earth from a single common ancestor, and the WTC collapse in no way resembled a controlled demolition whatsoever.

[tangent90]

34. We are urinating into the prevailing advection with these tinfoilers.

plonk

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. But you also say that high fructose corn poison and pharmaceutical chemicals are good for you

So your credibility is about equal to the birthers or the creationists. :evilgrin:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Well, it's not like high fructose corn syrup is bad for you.

It comes from corn you know.

Oh, yes, and medicine is VERY good for you. Particularly when you're sick.

Have you been taking your meds, Sebastian?

[tangent90]

32. I rest my case.

:eyes:

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. You're "resting" someone's case.

Judging by most of your posts, I'd guess its the case of whomever pays you to be here.

[Ikonoklast]

54. It's lasted a long time.

Better than most of them.

Sooner or later, it will screw up and show its' true colors.

[tangent90]

57. Let me guess...you spell the Secretary of State's name Klinton

right?

[tangent90]

56. Your inability to distinguish facts from bullshit is hardy my fault.

...

[maxsolomon]

16. Reality

has a well-known liberal bias.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Sad. It's like they're admitting

"facts have a well-known liberal bias."

I didn't receive this particular email, but I've seen others that said, "I've already checked this out on snopes.com" (implying "so you don't have to bother"). So I go there to verify, and of course it doesn't check out.

This is just a desperate attempt to discredit, using only anecdotal evidence and guilt by association. It tells me they're smarting from 2008.

[DeepBlueC]

49. "..confirmed by snopes.com"

My mother forwarded an e-mail to me with this testimonial so I checked out the story on snopes.com and found it...in the Urban Legends section. And all I used was the link on the e-mail itself!

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

18. Right-wing emails are going 'meta'.

Snopes will have to debunk this one, and Snopes will have to go 'meta' too.

[Cairycat]

19. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." n/t

[Lex]

33. Indeed.

nt

[suede1]

36. Yes, it does.

[havocmom]

20. yet another silly email posted by OP

Hmmmmm

[Hepburn]

55. Care to point out where I posted another email?

Maybe you are confused. Try Snopes, OK?

[RockaFowler]

22. It's on their website now

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp

[Cleita]

23. I guess if facts and truth equal liberal bias, then so be it. n/t

[tabatha]

25. See this interview:

"People say we're obviously Republican, or obviously Democrat," Mikkelson says. "We're apparently biased in every conceivable direction."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/snopes_com_grinds_down_the_rumor_mill_128954.htm

[Gormy Cuss]

26. Snopes addresses the Bud Gregg anecdote.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp

[Hepburn]

30. Thanks for the replies.....

....my response basically consisted of "beware of birthers."

Geeeeeeeez, how can anyone buy the bullshit about Obama not be a natural citizen?????

:shrug:

[ddeclue]

35. It's called GAMING THE REFS....

Of COURSE they are trying to discredit snopes.com because snopes has called bullshit on them and rightly so.

It's just more bullshit from the bullshitters..


Doug D.

[NYC Liberal]

38. "that's all the Mikkelson's do" - and they catalog it on an easy to browse site

Sure you could do all the research for yourself, but the whole point of snopes is to have a one-stop place to debunk all the urban legends and other crap, organized and easy to browse.

[guitar man]

39. awww, snopes didn't tell them what they wanted to hear

poor babies!! :rofl:

so they do to Snopes what they do with anything and everything that doesn't support their wrong headed views, no big surprise. :eyes:

[Mz Pip]

45. THe wingnutss did the same with Factcheck

THere was an email going around aabout how Factcheck was funded by Annenberg which was from Chicago and because the Annenberg Foundation gave a board position to Obama and to Bill Ayers then it was in the tank for Obama and all of their debunking could not be trusted.

But the bottom line is what you said. If the wingnuts don't hear what they want to hear they demonize the source.

Facts have a liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert so aptly pointed out.

[WeDidIt]

42. Forward the email to Snopes

I'm sure they'll debunk it.

[librechik]

43. next on the enemies list: Truth itself!

oh, wait they already did that...

[SmileyRose]

47. Actually Snopes IS extreme liberal because Republicans almost always LIE.

It's not Snopes' fault Republicans are habitual liars. (Along with the writer of that piece)

[RFKHumphreyObama]

48. WTF? The person who thought up this e-mail is a tool of the highest order

<But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding>

David and Barbara Mikkelson have never hidden the fact that they are the driving forces behind thhe site. I started using that site as far back as 2000 and I knew even then that they were the main two contributors to the site -as clearly evidenced by the fact that Barbara Mikkelson used to add her name at the end of her contributions. A simple google search would have revealed who exactly was behind the site so the guy who started this e-mail and his "friends" who spent years trying to find out who exactly was behind the site are dumber than a box of rocks if they couldn't find this information in about 5 minutes

[spanone]

51. you sure that's not the onion????

[Oak2004]

52. Once upon an ancient time ago on the net, when every day wasn't September

and the World Wide Web was less an information source than a novelty that sort of worked like gopher, except there wasn't much on it, I was a regular at alt.folklore.urban. Of all the AFU regulars (most of whom were far and away more educated than the average net user today), the most respected researchers by far were the Mikkelsons.

That time, long ago, was in the early-mid 1990s. That means that the Mikkelsons have been researching urban legends -- in fact, being among the best at researching urban legends -- for 15, almost 20 years. I don't know about you, but if someone had been recognized by their peers as a top researcher in their field of interest for almost 20 years, I'd say they had a background in research.

Freepers, I guess, think otherwise.

[damntexdem]

53. That sure opens my eyes -- the way acid would.

I'll have to run it by snopes.com to check on it.