The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
According to Snopes it's only partly accurate. Apparently the second sentence has been fabricated. Too bad. The first by itself is still an indictment, even accounting for the rhetoric of politics.
Lots of people (with agendas) tell me snopes isn't reliable. None have been willing (able?) to demonstrate it as fact. Care to break that pattern for me?
Yep, this is false in that the first half is a quote from an attack ad narrator (paid for by his campaign but still not the same as a direct quote) and the second half is wholly fabrication.
To my knowledge no one has been able to disprove Snopes although many mutter and wish they could.
Snopes is run by a very leftist couple. (Husband and wife team) By all accounts they are nice enough people, but that fact has nothing to do with the question of whether their bias infects their "myth-busting" activities. Of *course* their leftist bias affects their work! It's like asking whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg's left-wing worldview affects her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice...and it's an equally ridiculous question, if you'll pardon my bluntness. The link I've provided is just one example. Google-Fu level: Hidden Dragon. :-P
All very true about Snopes' operators having an intrinsic bias. That says nothing, however, about the veracity of their entry on this. If it's wrong, let's see some evidence Obama actually said that. Personally I'd be happier if it were true.
They say "it's a mixture" of true and false...but my favorite part is "...no record [that candidate Obama] uttered or used those *specific words*..." Emphasis mine. They say the ad in question (which was viewed, and approved, by candidate Obama) was "focused on Hillary's trustworthiness" but it didn't use those exact words. ("Hillary can't be trusted") To their credit, they don't even *try* to deny that candidate Obama (and his campaign) used Hillary's "untrustworthy" nature against her during the campaign...quite effectively, really. That bit of agile tap dancing made me giggle, personally.
Anyway, in answer to the question "did their bias influence their response to this particular meme?" I still have to say "of course" but not necessarily in a way that justifies dismissing this particular snopes entry as inaccurate or untrustworthy. As long as you look at it with a big ol' grain of salt, this entry was just fine. Cool? Alright, God bless! :-)
9 comments:
Finally, a statement by Mister Obama that I can agree with.
According to Snopes it's only partly accurate. Apparently the second sentence has been fabricated. Too bad. The first by itself is still an indictment, even accounting for the rhetoric of politics.
And yet, there she is.
I would snope Snopes, as they are proving unreliable.
Lots of people (with agendas) tell me snopes isn't reliable. None have been willing (able?) to demonstrate it as fact. Care to break that pattern for me?
"... and change nothing."
I disagree. If given the chance she WILL change things. Fir the worse.
The second sentence, even if fabricated, is true.
These days partisanship is everywhere. It is quite possible Snopes has an agenda.
How do we like Wikipedia?
=BCE56=
Yep, this is false in that the first half is a quote from an attack ad narrator (paid for by his campaign but still not the same as a direct quote) and the second half is wholly fabrication.
To my knowledge no one has been able to disprove Snopes although many mutter and wish they could.
With regard to Snopes...it's funny, but this is a perfect example:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/
Snopes is run by a very leftist couple. (Husband and wife team) By all accounts they are nice enough people, but that fact has nothing to do with the question of whether their bias infects their "myth-busting" activities. Of *course* their leftist bias affects their work! It's like asking whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg's left-wing worldview affects her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice...and it's an equally ridiculous question, if you'll pardon my bluntness. The link I've provided is just one example. Google-Fu level: Hidden Dragon. :-P
All very true about Snopes' operators having an intrinsic bias. That says nothing, however, about the veracity of their entry on this. If it's wrong, let's see some evidence Obama actually said that. Personally I'd be happier if it were true.
Well, here's a link to the Snopes page in question:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-hillary-clinton-isnt-qualified/
They say "it's a mixture" of true and false...but my favorite part is "...no record [that candidate Obama] uttered or used those *specific words*..." Emphasis mine. They say the ad in question (which was viewed, and approved, by candidate Obama) was "focused on Hillary's trustworthiness" but it didn't use those exact words. ("Hillary can't be trusted") To their credit, they don't even *try* to deny that candidate Obama (and his campaign) used Hillary's "untrustworthy" nature against her during the campaign...quite effectively, really. That bit of agile tap dancing made me giggle, personally.
Anyway, in answer to the question "did their bias influence their response to this particular meme?" I still have to say "of course" but not necessarily in a way that justifies dismissing this particular snopes entry as inaccurate or untrustworthy. As long as you look at it with a big ol' grain of salt, this entry was just fine. Cool? Alright, God bless! :-)
Post a Comment