Thread by @Adam4d

Thread:

So @snopes fact-checked @TheBabylonBee again. But this time it's particularly egregious and, well, kind of disturbing. And I'd like to talk about it.

Pack a lunch cuz this'll be a long one.

First off, here's their ridiculous article: snopes.com/fact-check/geo…

And here is the Bee article they say they're "fact-checking": babylonbee.com/news/georgia-l…

/2

First, look at the subtitle of the Snopes piece: "We're not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as 'satire.'"

What an indictment!

/3

Just in the subtitle of this "objective fact check" they've veered toward pronouncing a moral judgment, assigning motives, and presuming to dictate -- to one of the most popular satire sites on the planet -- what does and does not count as satire.

/4

Onward: First two paragraphs. Does it seem like they might be leaving out a few very important details of the actual news story which would be relevant to explaining the satire piece? Maybe one or two?

washingtonexaminer.com/news/georgia-s…

usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

/5

Next: The third paragraph ... this paragraph! Just look at it!

An "apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation"? What a subjective and malicious statement!

This is a "fact check"?

/6

We "published a fictionalized version of the story"? That's certainly an interesting way of saying we satirized an absurd real-life event. You know, that thing that all satirical outlets do.

/7

Also, imagine the type of ideological bubble one must live in to think that what Chick-fil-A is "known for" is "its CEO’s opposition to same-sex marriage." It's the most beloved fast-food chain in the country!

This is a "fact check"?

/8

NEXT PARAGRAPH. Stay with me here.

"The Babylon Bee has managed to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past" -- Doesn't that wording really make it sound as though the Bee is TRYING to fool readers? Like we INTEND to, and sometimes succeed?

/9

Onward:

Now this sentence is quite troubling. Describing the Bee article as a "ruse."

Let me define "ruse" for you: "an action intended to deceive someone."

Now that's an accusation.

/10

What Snopes has written here is not a "fact-check" at all -- it's an opinion piece. A hit piece. Which is very problematic coming from the site that, on its "About us" page, loudly declares itself "the internet’s definitive fact-checking resource." snopes.com/about-snopes/

/11

They fundraise off of fear of misinformation and sell shirts emblazoned with "#facts," "Facts on facts," "Check your sources," and "Only you can prevent fake news." shop.snopes.com

/12

I searched "the Onion" on their site and here's one of the first ones that popped up: snopes.com/fact-check/ice…

Why is this not "fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story"? Why does this clearly meet their standard of acceptable satire?

/13

They've ascribed dark motives to the Bee while laughing off Onion fact-checks like HAHAA GUYS, "of course" it's satire! OF COURSE! Some readers just got confused, y'know!

/14

The real problem here is that Snopes (and sites like them) *advertise themselves as objective, trustworthy arbiters of truth -- and important, influential people and media routinely use them as definitive indicators of truthfulness in ways that really affect people's lives.*

/15

The Bee has been "Snoped" plenty of times before (and had to endure Facebook purgatory once because of it). But what they've written this time certainly seems like an attempt to delegitimize and demonize an important satirical outlet, and that is totally unacceptable.

/16

A clumsy mistake or an incompetent writer are insufficient explanations for publishing something like this when you position yourself as an unbiased, stalwart arbiter of truth and presume to wield the influence that comes along with that title.

/17

So @snopes: I suggest you fix this article, and I suggest you fix your operation.

/End