Snopes Snipes and Royal Wedding Snubs

Source

Snopes Obvious liberal bias

January 17, 2011

If you wish to verify information, don’t click on Snopes. This supposed “go-to” place for finding out if urban myths and legends are true or not is run by a husband and wife team David and Barbara Mikkelson from Los Angeles. They have no credentials, or degrees in investigative research. They have no expertise other than putting up a website that to some extent has helped to debunk myths and legends that assault us via email and otherwise. Yet they are not experts in anything. Well, maybe in spreading liberal propaganda.

The Mikkelsons have been accused of a liberal bias on Snopes and it would appear that these accusations may very well be true as evidenced by articles on their own website. These allegations have been repeatedly denied by the Mikkelsons. Their answer to having a liberal bias is that Barbara is a Canadian and unable to vote (however, last I checked, this does not prevent her from having a liberal bias). David claims not to be registered as a Democrat. Which appears to be true, however he has apparently voted and I repeat this small fact does not prevent him from having a liberal bias either.

Here’s a source that claims they are not only liberally bias, but they lie to promote their bias:

http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/07/snopes_unreliab.html

My own research and experience with Snopes over the years also leads me to the conclusion that they indeed have an agenda.

Trying to verify a link recently sent me in an email regarding Australia’s gun ban, I found many sources and also found the search results included a link to Snopes.

To a conservative, with of course a bias, the statistics would come as no surprise. There was a sharp and dramatic rise in violent crime apparently as a result of a gun ban.

To a liberal, they would have to make excuses given these same statistics. Just as the Snopes website managed to do. Their reasoning? Statistics can be skewed according to one’s point of view.

Genius.

They also base their attempt to discredit the apparent rise in violent crime to no Australian constitutional law which allows Australians to own a gun.

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

First of all, reading “the above” which will be produced below – it does not say nor does it imply that “much of Australian citizenry owned handguns.”

I’m pretty fair at reading comprehension, so how is it I didn’t get even a tiny hint about any such thing? Nope, not seeing that at all in this email that has been passed around. This email writer didn’t tell us that all the citizens of Australia owned guns and all of them were taken away nor was it hinted at.

Also, since when does having the right to bear arms (as it is in the U.S. constitution) automatically mean every U.S. citizen owns a gun? I don't. I have the right to own one but I don't.

Therefore, this reference by the Mikkelsons to slant the emailer's intent by even mentioning this irrelevant factoid is superfluous and what appears to be an attempt at distracting from the bare facts. Something they pride themselves in doing - sticking to just the facts. They don't. They add their liberal bias and this is one prime example of that.

David and Barb continue on and use the shaky premise that Aussies have no constitutional right to bear arms "and never have" - as if this is somehow a valid basis on which to build their argument.

They also attempt to use their other premise - statistics can be skewed -- as their other base element for their argument. Then they went on and on and on to try to prove their assumptions (never assume) using (for the most part) those two jumping points.

Their very wordy, nice-try (but no cigar) attempt to slant these statistics as having ZERO affect or relation to Australia’s gun ban is the result. Good effort! You get an "A" Dave and Babs for effort. Good use of big words and a complicated, convoluted attempt to prove your point. You get a B for those big important words. But your Mikkelson/Snopes liberal bias most definitely is showing. For that you get an F.

Still, this is a minor example. I've seen many more examples strongly pointing to their prejudice. So I found it almost humorous when someone else recently sent me the Royal snub of the Obama’s with regard to the upcoming Wills and Kate nuptials in the spring of 2011. Again, I tried to verify this and saw yet another pesky link to Snopes on the subject.

Surprise! The Mikkelsons tried to spin it as not a snub!

They (wrongly) write:

President and Mrs. Obama are not on the guest list. In this, they have plenty of company: few heads of state are likely to be invited to the wedding . (One confirmed exception is President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, whose name is known to be on the guest list.) [emphasis mine]

In their rush to defend their liberal peeps – the Obamas – the Mikkelsons are fairly short on facts. It was a snub as there isn’t “only one confirmed exception” to heads of state who will be invited and this is from numerous UK sources other than what is quoted below:

A senior courtier said: ‘It is certainly not the case that all foreign heads of state will be excluded. The guest list is still being drawn up and could change, but as things stand it’s right (to say Mr[.] Obama will not be invited).’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339315/President-Obama-snubbed-sources-reveal-invited-Prince-Williams-wedding.html#ixzz1BOH9L4XC


It would seem that anyone not so sadly blinded by their liberal bias knows that the Obama’s were snubbed no matter who else is or isn’t invited. No bastion of conservative thought - The Huffington Post even has an article by President and Editor-in-Chief, HollywoodLife.com titled:

Prince William & Kate's Wedding Snub of the Obamas Is A Snub Against America!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/prince-william-kates-wedd_b_799698.html

It would appear the entire free world knows this is a harsh and obvious snub. Just a few more samplings make it abundantly clear:

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/12/17/royal-snub-obamas-not-invited-prince-william-and-kates-wedding

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/17/2010-12-17_prince_william_and_kate_middleton_wedding_president_barack_obama_and_michelle_no.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339315/President-Obama-snubbed-sources-reveal-invited-Prince-Williams-wedding.html

So I wrote to Babs and sent her a link to the article I quoted above pointing her right, but she preferred to stay left.

Oh there are none so blind as those who will not see…

She gave me a snippy answer I will cut and paste below. And oh BTW – she’s just going to stand her ground with her misinformation, because after all – it’s despicable people like her and her husband – liberals who lie for their cause – who helped put Mr. Obama into office in the first place. She’s not about to admit she’s wrong even though it’s obvious she is. She’s on a mission after all. She’s defending her liberal/socialist peeps.

Here’s her letter – in oh such a high fa-lutin’ prose eh:

Your comments evince a flawed understanding of the item you remarked upon.

For best results, we recommend ensuring you thoroughly and carefully

read articles in their entirety prior to submitting comments on their

contents.

Well bust my britches! I had to go to my dee-con-ary to look that thar word up “evince.” Man that wuz impressive!

I tried to answer that one but my email was returned with an error message:

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

response@snopes.com

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 no such address here" (state 14).

Methinks my email address and domain wuz blocked. Imagine that!

Always check your sources and if you’re liberal, keep clicking on Snopes, your go-to source for endless dis information. If you’re not, use a regular search engine and try to find primary sources.

Or any number of other reliable sources besides Snopes. They obviously have gotten big heads due to the urban legend that they are the go-to web site for fact-checking. Not.

No facts there. Just two liberals from La La Land with absolutely no credentials. Now do you honestly want to base your research on them? I thought not.

See also:

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000597.html

A 2008 article that still has interesting information about “fact checking” from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122339946870411861.html

More by this Author


Comments 20 comments

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

Fabulous piece of writing. I am impressed that you actually wrote to these two and received an answer. I found their response very revealing and indicative of the kind of people who do not welcome questions of any nature. Somehow they believe they have established themselves as the epitome of truth. Thank you for shining a light on them.Voted up and useful. It's awesome too, but I can't vote twice!


eovery profile image

eovery 5 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

I think you will find a lot things to have a liberal bias.

Keep on hubbing!


SheriSapp profile image

SheriSapp 5 years ago from West Virginia

I had been a bit suspicious of this site since I found out it was run by a couple of private individuals. Now that I know they reside in the people's republic of socialist California.....well, enough said!!!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks Pop - you humble me. I can only aspire to be half as good as you are. And thanks too for the votes! ;-)


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Sheri -- Glad I could be of help - I found a few items that were very liberally biased a few years back, but couldn't find the link for this Hub - but then I had had enough with two in a row incredibly slanted articles and then her ridiculous answer to my email. Are you kidding me? Could she be more full of herself?

Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving comments. I always love to see that golf ball! LOL


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

I believe you're probably right Eovery! Thanks so much for leaving your thoughts.

Carol


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

great write, I have been warning folks of

"snopes" being that starters of many email garbage that lands in their in box, why would they disprove their own fantasy? 50


Joshua Kell profile image

Joshua Kell 5 years ago from Arizona

Good to know. Thanks.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks 50 Caliber and Joshua Kell. I'm so glad you read my Hub and took your valuable time to leave a comment!

Carol


CornerStone51 5 years ago

Sis...I wrote once to her in reply to a really snotty anti-Christian jibe and never heard a word. So you are so blessed!!! LOL Good hug Sis!

Love ya bushels!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Sis. I think judging by her snide and pretentious remarks above, it's safe to say, she's not a very nice person! Few self-important liberals are!


C.J. Wright 5 years ago

Great Hub. One thing can be learned from this. The left is Organized! Conservatives could learn a few things from them in this regard.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

CJ - you make an excellent point! I hope Conservatives can keep the momentum and as you said, take a page out of the liberal play book!

Thanks for adding to the discussion!


jellio_123 profile image

jellio_123 5 years ago

Holy cow! This was excellent. I blindly went along consulting this webiste thinking it was a legit source of confirming or debunking info in all those emails being circulated about various topics...Shame on me for never questioning it when a friend introduced me to snopes... but thank you for this great work!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

You know what you can do? You can tell everyone you can the truth about Snopes jellio - I too used them constantly until someone else pointed out their bias to me. Now I try to get the word out to make up for my ignorance.

Thanks for reading and commenting!


caltex profile image

caltex 5 years ago

Wow! You got yourself blocked by Snopes?!? Apparently, they cannot handle the truth! I've actually been warned about their liberal bias a while back and have quit going by them since. Glad you're spreading the word. That page is NOT at all reliable.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

I guess I found that out caltex. I had heard rumors and then a few things began to add up - so I thought - go to the source. Often liberals won't answer emails or phone calls. I've done this before especially when I was a newspaper reporter. They don't HAVE to answer to the public apparently.

I just hope the word keeps getting out because I still see quite a number of conservatives who use snopes.

Carol


Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 5 years ago from HubPages, FB

Sheri I love it: the people's republic of socialist California


Becky 5 years ago

I was actually told by my college professor not to use Snopes or Wikipedia for my research because they were unreliable.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 5 years ago from Michigan Author

Thank you Becky - your professor was absolutely right! Wikipedia can literally have information on any given topic changed by anyone who has a Wikipedia account - so that source is as unreliable as Snopes. Thanks for your comments. It was good to hear at least some people are using good common sense - and you and your professor are two people with good common sense!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working