This is starting to get into lent.  

I will say, the snopes articles that I have researched after being told they 
were biased, were slightly biased.  Just slightly but I did not consider them 
as fair and balanced as they would like people to believe.  

I used to really enjoy and use snopes.  But then my alt-right son told me about 
a few cases to take a close look at.  And he was right.  I did not have the 
same conclusions as he did that they are terribly biased with an agenda etc 
etc.  After that though I did read their stuff with a bit of a jaundiced eye.  
It was clear they chose to ignore or discount evidence favorable to the right 
but they don’t do the same, or at least not the the same degree to the left.  

If they give the benefit of the doubt, the benefit seemingly always swings left 
instead of right most of the time.  
If they have a choice on how to couch a response, they choose words that tend 
to make the left look better than the right.  

From: Carl Peterson 
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:34 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Is this good?

I am always amazed at how disconnected the far right can be from what I think 
is reality.  Snopes is fact based and Wikipedia as a whole is pretty darn 
unbiased.  Just because you don't like facts doesn't make them biased. 


On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:00 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I cant help but laugh when wikipedia is used to decipher neutrality. sadly, 
its one step above snopes anymore.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to