• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

‘Fact-Checker’ Snopes Caught In The Biggest Fake News Scandal Of The Year

HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To me the one thing we know is NOT FAKE NEWS and that for which we should all rejoice is that Neil Gorsuch was nominated and sworn in as a justice to the SCOTUS!

To me even if President Trump resigned and went home he would have fulfilled his destiny in appointing Neil!!

HankD
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Use of Time said:
I'll be bet my mortgage that the honorable Rev. Mitchell simply walks away from this thread without owning it.
Click to expand...
And after losing this bet you accuse him of "doubling down". Seems like he couldn't win either way.

Anyway, you lost your bet and ITL's smooching put him in the same wrong space. You should both acknowledge he did NOT walk away.
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Still would like to see some examples of Snopes' bias and erroneous reporting on fake news that was actually real.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
If I were him I wouldnt bother. If he doesn't respond he's "walking away". If he does respond he's "doubling down". Ridiculous. He'd be stupid to engage this any further.
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So far he has posted a fake story from a self-admitted fake news site and another story that simply yelled "LIBERALS".



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsr
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
He did NOT walk away.

And there's a considerable amount of hyperbole in your last post.

Would also love to see you prove conservatives post more fake news than liberals.
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. Curtis said:
He did NOT walk away.

And there's a considerable amount of hyperbole in your last post.
Click to expand...

Don't think so. It was shown that it is a fake news site and the article "proving" bias merely pointed out that some Snopes contributors had previously written for left wing publications.

Would also love to see you prove conservatives post more fake news than liberals.
Click to expand...

I said conservatives create more fake emails and fake Facebook stories.

Also, there was a new industry of fake conservative news sites run by entrepreneurs in Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, Belarus, Russia, etc. in 2016.

Let's stay on topic by someone giving examples of Snope's stories that are false and/or liberal biased.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
I'm not accepting your claim as proof. You said conservatives produce more fake news before I came to the conversation. I'd like some proof, please.
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Again... LOL.

In our fake news database, we record 41 pro-Clinton (or anti-Trump) and 115 pro-Trump (or anti- Clinton) articles, which were shared on Facebook a total of 7.6 million and 30.3 million times, respectively. Thus, there are about three times more fake pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles, and the average pro-Trump article was shared more on Facebook than the average pro- Clinton article. To be clear, these statistics show that more of the fake news articles on these three fact-checking sites are right-leaning. This could be because more of the actual fake news is right-leaning, or because more right-leaning assertions are forwarded to and/or reported by fact- checking sites, or because the conclusions that fact-checking sites draw have a left-leaning bias, or some combination. Some anecdotal reports support the idea that the majority of election-related fake news was pro-Trump: some fake news providers reportedly found higher demand for pro- Trump (or anti-Clinton) fake news, and responded by providing more of it (Sydell 2016).
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Use of Time said:
Rev. Mitch has me on ignore dude. He didn't own it he just threw another article at it instead of owning that he got duped by one of his own fake news sites. He's still walking away unless he actually uses his own words to address the comments against him. He won't because he doesn't have any. He can only copy and paste articles and is one of the biggest hypocrites this board has ever seen. The guy who calls people liberal operatives in one breath while simultaneously spamming up the entire board with Blaze and Breitbart articles. He's getting called on his bogus articles around here and the board will be better for it.
Click to expand...
You should debate him with facts. If you had stuck with facts instead of your inaccurate claim you never would have heard from me.
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Use of Time said:
Rev. Mitch has me on ignore dude. He didn't own it he just threw another article at it instead of owning that he got duped by one of his own fake news sites. He's still walking away unless he actually uses his own words to address the comments against him. He won't because he doesn't have any. He can only copy and paste articles and is one of the biggest hypocrites this board has ever seen. The guy who calls people liberal operatives in one breath while simultaneously spamming up the entire board with Blaze and Breitbart articles. He's getting called on his bogus articles around here and the board will be better for it.
Click to expand...
Let me also say that you have a point about the sites he uses. In both of these cases the information is sourced and that's what should be used to back up any point you make. There is a lazy habit people have here of headline posting without really knowing anything the article really says.
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
InTheLight said:
Well if a scholarly paper from Stanford University isn't proof enough, just admit that nothing would suffice.
Click to expand...
It simply doesn't say what you say it does. I quoted the part in your link where they admit the entire study was pretty much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top