Snopes' subtle right-wing bias

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/obituary.asp

This page answers the question as to whether an obituary made a request for gifts to be given to organizations working to remove * from office. (As was also the case for Sally "Bush is a Whistle-Ass" Baron.)

Excerpt:

"Origins: An octogenarian who so despised the current president that she left instructions directing that her memorial gifts should 'be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office'?"

There it is again - anyone who disagrees with * and what he's doing to the country is said to DESPISE him. I've complained about Snopes' bias in the past, and here is just one more example. This repeats perfectly the "Bush haters" meme that the right wing is pushing so hard these days, to deflect any criticism of their boy king.

It seems like she does despise George W. Bush, but so do I.

they tried to deny the bin laden family flights out of this country when domestic air travel was grounded after 9/11

they had to come clean about that finally

Nobody's perfect.

Hell, I knew about the flights days after 9/11. I wasn't dreaming. It was reported here.

Snopes received plenty of evidence to, at the very least, cast a doubt on it's denial. But it simply went with the "official story" until the officials changed the story.

They wouldn't do it if they deliberately made a false claim.

They admitted they were wrong. You don't see that too often.

Snopes is tilted to the right, it is subtle but it's there.

... the lady made it clear she despised Bush. I for one don't give a RAT'S ASS if the charge "Bush* hater" is levelled against me. I try not to hate anyone, but then I can't be perfect.

The people whining about "Bush haters" were actively "Clinton haters" for years and still are for the most part. They didn't see anything wrong with that and I don't see anything wrong with being a "Bush* hater".

:hi:
Did you go to the Whitesboro Peanut Festival?

I have pretty much read EVERYTHING on that site. If anything, the lady that runs the site, is left leaning. Nice Jewish ladies don't generally go in with the brown-shirt types.

Back in 2000 they had the rumor about Gore claiming he invented the Internet as true. I wrote to them explaining what he really said, how the story got spread to the media, etc, and gave them a link. They wrote back and said they were checking out. A little while later they had changed their rating to False.

They try hard, but they do this as a hobby, and as I understand it, they are actually just a couple who do the research and the writing themselves. I'm sure they rely on readers giving them tips, but they do a lot of research on their own, and do an incredible job of tracking things down. I'm sure they are wrong sometimes, and I'm sure that on occassion they pick up the bias of tipsters, but they're pretty honest in their intentions.

As for the criticism over the word "despise," I hear you, though it is too mild a word for what I feel. I read it as just a weakness in their writing skills. A lot of their writings seem very colloquial, and not always linguistically accurate. But I don't see a bias in their research.

wrong about a Democrat or a Republican, we should do the research and send it to them.

I heard her relative being interviewed on CBC radio about the bequest...some obscure state...Idaho or something.

They did a nice job of debunking that clinton death list nonsense.

Besides, the still classify it as true.

They DO dispel the rabid rumors started against the Clintons, including the body count, the secret service mortgage thing, and the GoldStar mothers. But in a lot of their writeups, it clearly implies (to me at least) a grudging acknowledgment, sort of like a "Even though the Clintons were a pair of scoundrels, THIS isn't an example."

Yet for the many examples of * stupidity, it seems like they take another attitude, one of "Well, it's just plain silly to think that the President is dumb."

Maybe I'll try to dig up some other examples.

Snopes says that this story is "undetermined" but does go a bit further than just presenting facts. The snopes account seems to try hard to dismiss the story because it seems too similar to some Dan Quayle story or because it could be just an example of Bush's inability to communicate well.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/brazil.htm

As I recall when it first appeared here at DU there was some discussion about the paper that reported it, and whether it was reliable.

Kind of like the Stevie Wonder waving story. It's pretty clear that Bush wasn't waving at Stevie Wonder. But it was so fun to pretend he was.

IMO, Snopes tries to be as neutral as possible. Look at the Clinton binoculars, Bush binoculars pages. IMO, that's neutrality. While admitting both could have been photoshopped, or both could be true, they also note that it really doesn't matter because damned near everyone who has ever used binoculars or a camera has at one time or another put them to their face with the lens caps on.

photo is probably real. But snopes tries to lessen the impact of Bush looking stupid by saying what he did could happen to anyone. So did they want to let Bush off the hook (bias) or were they just wanting to be fair?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

The fact that Snopes would imply the Clinton photo is faked is enough to prove to me they don't.

If, in fact, they were biased toward the right, not only would they have implied the Bush photo was faked, they would have made no mention of the fact that it's a silly mistake that could happen to anyone.

It is a breath of fresh air.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/24/bias_questions.html