|
Politifact & Snopes came under fire this past year for accusations of fraud by "Independent News Outlets" who had become fully aware of the groups elitist funded operations, enforcing propaganda over fact checking in any sense of the word - acting as disinformation agencies for any marxist sponsor willing to pay.
|
Snopes is a joke
As prntly explains:
"Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria who is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else".
described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal.
"claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
"Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares."
"Argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim."
"After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”"
"Even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”"
"Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria who is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else".
described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal.
"claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
"Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares."
"Argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim."
"After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”"
"Even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.”"
Additionally a Forbes article on snopes broke on how one of the founders was caught embezzling nearly $100,000 to use on prostitutes and himself, the claim is he married one of these prostitutes taking this out of this world.
Forbes did not just question Snopes- they went much further- especially after receiving Snopes’ replies. The writer quickly understood that the Snopes folks aren’t the gods of truth, even though they are self-anointed as such.
The author admitted that he once thought Snopes was so awesome and accurate, but no longer.
From the forbes piece:
“Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”
It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”
This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.”
Forbes did not just question Snopes- they went much further- especially after receiving Snopes’ replies. The writer quickly understood that the Snopes folks aren’t the gods of truth, even though they are self-anointed as such.
The author admitted that he once thought Snopes was so awesome and accurate, but no longer.
From the forbes piece:
“Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”
It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”
This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.”
Politifact is a fake
Politifake is aiming to appear objective, but in reality they are a liberal propaganda machine disguised as a fact check organization. The entire goal is to create a systems where liberals can convince themselves their leftist thinking is factual when it is not - which is nothing new from marxists collectivists.
The federalist papers project reports:
From claiming the exact same statement is both “true” and “false,” depending on whether or not Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump says it, to flat-out lying about the issues, the organization seems to take a decidedly liberal, pro-Hillary turn on every issue.
Our friends at The Daily Caller have uncovered that the site – officially part of the Tampa Bay Times, (owned by the Poyner Journalism institute) shares a mega-donor with the Clinton Foundation.
The Omidyar Network, started by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, has given $225,000 to PolitiFact to “fact-check claims about global health and development.” They also gave $1 million to Hillary Clinton’s foundation.
In fact, the Poynter Institute receives money from the eBay mogul in other ways too.
But rather than come out and admit it, they actually deny that they receive any money at all from the Omidyar Network:
“We have never received funding from the Omidyar Network, and we have no connection or relationship to the Clinton Foundation other than covering it,” Sharockman, who is Politifact’s executive director, said.
This is a lie.
PolitiFact acknowledges on their “Who Pays For Us” page that they receive funding from the “Democracy Fund,” yet another group funded by Omidyar.
Yet nowhere in any of the reports PolitiFact has done about the Clinton Foundation do they admit their connection to the non-profit.
And Omidyar is a big donor to the Clintons and to liberal causes. Pierre and his wife have given more than $500,000 to Democratic candidates, causes and campaign committees in recent years, including Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a host of Democratic political committees.
Even more incredible? Omidyar is the single largest contributor to the “NeverTrump PAC.” In 2016, the group received $303,550 in money, $250,000 of which came directly from Omidyar.
You don’t have to look much further than their proclamation in 2009 that Barack Obama was telling the truth when he said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
PolitiFact, as all disinformation agencies and agents will get some things right, but more often than not, when faced with a decisions which require neutrality they have repeated shown an overwhelming bias in preference for the points supported by their sponsors.
The federalist papers project reports:
From claiming the exact same statement is both “true” and “false,” depending on whether or not Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump says it, to flat-out lying about the issues, the organization seems to take a decidedly liberal, pro-Hillary turn on every issue.
Our friends at The Daily Caller have uncovered that the site – officially part of the Tampa Bay Times, (owned by the Poyner Journalism institute) shares a mega-donor with the Clinton Foundation.
The Omidyar Network, started by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, has given $225,000 to PolitiFact to “fact-check claims about global health and development.” They also gave $1 million to Hillary Clinton’s foundation.
In fact, the Poynter Institute receives money from the eBay mogul in other ways too.
But rather than come out and admit it, they actually deny that they receive any money at all from the Omidyar Network:
“We have never received funding from the Omidyar Network, and we have no connection or relationship to the Clinton Foundation other than covering it,” Sharockman, who is Politifact’s executive director, said.
This is a lie.
PolitiFact acknowledges on their “Who Pays For Us” page that they receive funding from the “Democracy Fund,” yet another group funded by Omidyar.
Yet nowhere in any of the reports PolitiFact has done about the Clinton Foundation do they admit their connection to the non-profit.
And Omidyar is a big donor to the Clintons and to liberal causes. Pierre and his wife have given more than $500,000 to Democratic candidates, causes and campaign committees in recent years, including Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a host of Democratic political committees.
Even more incredible? Omidyar is the single largest contributor to the “NeverTrump PAC.” In 2016, the group received $303,550 in money, $250,000 of which came directly from Omidyar.
You don’t have to look much further than their proclamation in 2009 that Barack Obama was telling the truth when he said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
PolitiFact, as all disinformation agencies and agents will get some things right, but more often than not, when faced with a decisions which require neutrality they have repeated shown an overwhelming bias in preference for the points supported by their sponsors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources:
"The Controversial Truth" Project
G+Business:
https://plus.google.com/112373178590768262082
G+Brand:
https://plus.google.com/105978365750500458220
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ControTruth
Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkkbRxaUgOJPqbaj-UaX7A
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ControTruth
Pinterest:
https://www.pinterest.com/contratruth/
Tumblr:
http://con-tru.tumblr.com/
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sephnhaven/
Please Follow Us on As many As possible to ensure we cannot be censored or shut down. (LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, SUPPORT US & FOLLOW)
"The Controversial Truth" Project
G+Business:
https://plus.google.com/112373178590768262082
G+Brand:
https://plus.google.com/105978365750500458220
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ControTruth
Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkkbRxaUgOJPqbaj-UaX7A
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ControTruth
Pinterest:
https://www.pinterest.com/contratruth/
Tumblr:
http://con-tru.tumblr.com/
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sephnhaven/
Please Follow Us on As many As possible to ensure we cannot be censored or shut down. (LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, SUPPORT US & FOLLOW)
RSS Feed
