The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger

Popular myth-busting website Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.



Anonymous said...

For years now, I've gotten emails reference different things. Sometimes I would read it, but if I saw it had been verified by this left wing trash it would get deleted immediately.

Anonymous said...

I've known it was a liberal left site for a couple of years , how long have you known it Joe? Your response is welcome!

Anonymous said...

Snopes has been an advocate for the liberal retard agenda for many years

Anonymous said...

Snopes posting on this subject about noon today

Daily Caller has never been my cup of tea. SNOPES is not perfect (what is?), but still it is more reliable than forwarded emails and Facebook "SHARE THIS!" posts IMO

I check SNOPES first when in doubt of articles I read, BUT I also check out other sites, not relying just on SNOPES, such as, is a great site to check out Social Media and email hoax.

Often sites post rumors or opinions that I feel required to check out before repeating as true. I have deleted oodles of emails, rather than forwarding because of the above sites proving IMO info is incorrect.