Popular Posts

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Snopes-Surprising

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 e-mail.


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 issues, 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.

When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama's Birth Certificate 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.

Then 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. 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 Democrat 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

19 comments:

  1. Interesting... And to think we all, myself included, went there to see if something was true or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joe if you recall a couple of months ago there was a post concerning people driving with high beams on and I said something about "be careful because of possible gang involvement." You said you went to snopes and it said on there it was a myth. I once again commented that sometimes snopes is wrong"!

    I think one of the most important lessons is don't put total faith in anything you wouldn't fully investigate yourself! We can get general guides from many sources, such as snopes, but the fact is we don't know if those sources are truths or not.

    A lot of the things covered on snopes are just plain common sense! Maybe some people need to take a course to learn it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My information was confirmed by the State Police and Sheriff Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They are from California! What does that tell you?
    I have dealt with a liberal and everything I say, he reverses it. Just like snopes!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I use 'truthorfiction.com'
    Many times they have had different 'opinions' than snopes.
    any scoop on them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lol at trusting wikipedia as a factual site as well. Blind leading the blind.

    DJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is also interesting that much anti-Obama information that appears is scrubbed off the internet quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. anonymous 9:24, paranoid much? Come on now, things aren't that bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Obama is a natural born US citizen. He has provided the certified copy of his birth certificate to the press. The Hawaiian Department of Health has testified to the authenticity of his original in their vaults, and the Supreme Court threw out the frivolous case against Obama without even looking at it:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf

    The man was born in Hawai'i. Period. No one offers any evidence to the contrary. NONE. All anyone can do is try to 'debunk' the truth, saying Obama hasn't provided 'evidence', and it's looking desperate and kind of sad.

    So, now you pull snopes.com into this? The only "fact" that they "got wrong", according to this article, is that they are reporting Obama is a natural born citizen. Which has been backed up by Obama, The State of Hawai'i, and the United States Supreme Court.

    This is a ridiculously transparent political attack. How serious do people want to be taken when they push this kind of easily debunked stuff?

    Let it go, anti-Obama folks. It was cute, at first, but now it's getting kind of creepy that you won't take the word of the Federal Elections Commission, the State of Hawai'i and the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not paranoid, probably visit conservative political sites that you do not. Try visiting No Quarter,Uppity Woman, Texas Darlin,Michelle Malkin,Atlas Shrugs,Flopping Aces,Sweetness and Light to name a few. Type in something like Obama scrubbed" and see if any info pops up. I have seen over the past couple of years You Tube clips that disappear, many of these sites save info before it is scrubbed. You can believe it or not Joe, it doesn't change the fact it IS happening.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:37,

    Your sources have a vested interest in making claims like that so that they appear to be 'victims', and can create the impression that there is a conspiracy. It's a classic propaganda tactic.

    Do you doubt the word of the FEC, The State of Hawai'i, and the Supreme Court, on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Old news.

    I was not aware Wikipedia article, nor have I read it.

    I have known about David and Barbara Mikkelson for some time.

    Sand Box John

    ReplyDelete
  13. Google donated heavily to Obama's campaign and inauguaration. Google CEO heartily endorsed Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wikipedia in case you were not aware is created by "us". Anyone can edit any page with any information they want to. All you need to do is sign up and create an account. I can go there right now and edit Snopes page and change it to say every single thing they state is factual...

    Realistically - when reading things on the internet, chances are it is going to be just the same as reading it in the newspaper. Slightly biased depending on the writer, possibly disotrted a bit depending on how much research he did and so forth. And depending on how much of the story was passed on from one person to the next and not checked into at all - well then we have the telephone game...

    I take everything with a grain of salt, do my own research no matter who it came from unless I see concrete HARDCOPY evidence with my own eyes these days. Face it, you just cant be to careful anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Chuck, no offense but you brought up the birth certificate. Obsess much? If you drop it maybe they will too. I don't think the Obama presidency was a conspiracy from birth,just so you know I'm on your side.
    I found out the factcheck.org is the same way when they didn't even post Biden's gaffes during the VP debate, like the fact as I watched, he said "The US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." I sent them a note about it and saw nothing changed and haven't been back.-ANYmouse

    ReplyDelete
  16. 10:50,

    No, I didn't bring it up. Read this post again. Their "evidence" that snopes.com is biased is due to the Obama Birth Certificate non-issue. It's the entire premise of their argument against snopes. It's classic propaganda: use the issue du jour to attempt to discredit a news source. They do it all the time, and this time they're using the birth certificate.

    Please re-read the post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Trusting Wikipedia for reliable information??? I bet Wiki also says Salisbury has a low crime rate, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you click on the Wikipedia page at the end of the article, you will find that it has none of the drivel that the article claims is true. I have seen this in a number of forums, and it appears to me that folks are trying to sabotage Snopes so that they can continue to send out baloney.
    Snopes may not always be right, but they have a verified history of correcting things when they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.