Snopes Snipes and Royal Wedding Snubs
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:
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.
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).’
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:
It would appear the entire free world knows this is a harsh and obvious snub. Just a few more samplings make it abundantly clear:
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
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:
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.
A 2008 article that still has interesting information about “fact checking” from the Wall Street Journal: