You seem confused about what Snopes is. They look at "rumours and misinformation". That means they are responding to the sort of bottom scraping muck that's typically found on... sites like Zerohedge or the Daily Mail. As well as all the other chain email/posts and other crap that abounds on the web. They aren't a general political fact checker.
pfft they sure think they're big shots. They see themselves as arbiters of truth protecting democracies around the world:
As misinformation has increasingly threatened democracies around the world (including our own), Snopes.com has stood in the forefront of fighting for truth and dispelling misinformation online.
They aren't a general political fact checker.
So? It's not bigfoot Facebook is interested in them "fact" checking.
Snopes Is a Sneaky Liar About California’s Bill To Ban Christian LGBT Talk
https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/
Snopes always always uses a strawman argument, changing the wording of the question just enough so that they are technically not wrong. Then your average idiot parrots what they think they have read. In terms of sneaky misinformation tactics, it's why Google loves them.
Snopes’ insistence that California Assembly Bill 2943 would not result in the Bible being banned in California is akin to Snopes calling “demonstrably and clearly false” the claim that Joseph Stalin killed everyone around him. True, Stalin did not kill “all” around him. Indeed, so far as we know he never personally killed anyone. But he did have a great many people killed.
One article? I've posted about a dozen now. You've posted memes, zerohedge and the daily mail. I know there's an imbalance, that's the nature of tabloid trash, fake news, CT's and chain posts/emails. They are overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon.
That's the narrative you are using to explain the glaring bias in what Snopes chooses to report.
Like I said, that means you are now admitting to the glaring number of biased pages on their website and are offering an explanation that absolves them of any bias in cherry picking which ones to cover and how to phrase the claims. Laughable.
I have offered we go through the links for CNN and migrants you have not accepted that offer.
There's not a lot of left-wing fake news about migrants being circulated on the web.
Funny how that conveniently fits the leftist narrative. Lots of news showing migrants in a bad light. Best to look for all the out-there claims we can debunk making them look good. No bias right?
They do
touch on some though.
This isn't even that critical of left. Makes look Trump bad by association, picture and all etc.
They are obviously biased too. It wasn't a random meme that started the claim, it was the MSM and whatever whackjobs there that decide Trump meant "all immigrants". So maybe they really liked that meme that they had to make a page for it, can't imagine why. If you scroll further down, Hitler and Trump together hah.
WHAT'S TRUE
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party consistently described Jewish people as animals.
or
WHAT'S TRUE
The MSM defended MS-13 and tried to
promoted a flase narrative about what Trump said to make it look like "all immigrants". One they backtracked on.
They go with the first.
If you read them they say which ones were posted by Raw Story. The search was just to demonstrate that they often report on Raw Story because they are a really trashy left-wing source that gets spammed a lot on social media. If you want an example of how that fails to demonstrate a "Left-wing narrative" but shows their general practice of tackling fake news on social media,
here's one of their articles on a Raw Story article about Bill O'Reilly. You can see they are responding to an Occupy Democrats tweet which sourced a Raw Story article.
That's not representative of impartiality at all. You are saying that just by reporting on something from Raw Story, because it's a trashy left-wing site, the contents automatically is unflattering to the left? I went through two pages of links and that's not what I'm seeing. In fact overwhelming majority don't look good for the right.
Also that raw story link is buried in the article right in the middle, it's not in the headers anywhere on the age, it's not in the search results anywhere. Ctrl+F won't indicate which ones are and aren't in the search results page. Some of them just infer Raw Story as one of the news outlets covering a story other outlets also reported on.
You seem to be missing the point. What you are calling "bias" is just the nature of what they are covering. They are specifically responding to inquiries and trends on social media. That's what they are talking about as "rumours and misinformation". In terms of fake news and political content being shared on social media, what you see is overwhelmingly dominated by the right-wing/conservatives. Much the same way the right-wing has always dominated tabloid news in the anglosphere. There are of course exceptions, such as the increasing number of
fake Trump stories or
activist claims about corporate crimes.
I'm sure you read my post on the political affiliation of their employees. Fake news?
