Sorry, don't have time for 20 minute video.
Seems like the TL;DW is that Snopes -- as per usual -- is lying to maintain the usual far-left narrative.
Was a Black Man Charged in the Killing of a White 5-year-old in North Carolina?
Snopes fact-checks that as: "Mixture" (of lie and truth)
They blatantly lie, and sneak in a second question into the sub-header -- you know, the part almost no one reads -- that says:
Conservative Americans claimed the mainstream news media (apart from Fox News) schemed to keep the death of Cannon Hinnant quiet.
The whole article then goes on to insinuate that the lack of coverage in the boy's death is a "conservative conspiracy." At the same time, the article makes sure to preach the usual far-left gospel of BLM and Antifa:
While appropriating phrases from the country’s social movement to end racism in policing, such as “#SayHisName,”
Eventually they reach their conclusion:
Based on our analysis of police statements, newsroom ethical policies, and the media coverage surrounding the child’s death, we determined the former assertion was true and the latter — that the mainstream news media exhibited a pattern of purposely ignoring the killing — was false.
Now, you may be wondering how they reached this conclusion? Simple. They say that since CNN did make an article (several days later) and since local affiliates of a couple large MSM outlets had stories, clearly it was not ignored.
As for the other outlets? NYT, WaPo, Reuters, etc, well, Snopes reached out to them for comment, but never heard back.
It's hands down one of the most disingenuous and flagrantly insulting pieces Snopes has done in a while. It obfuscates the truth for silly sophistry and the twisting of the actual truth.
The people at Snopes know that the questions, tweets, social media posts, discussions that they post in their own article are all dated before Aug 14th -- the day CNN finally did release an article. They also willfully misrepresent "Mainstream Media" and pretend that what people were talking about were local affiliates, and not the 24-hour news cycle stations -- who still don't mention it.
They also make no mention of all their cited articles not mentioning race in the headline -- which one would think is the new standard for journalism-- but, because it was black on white and not the other way around it naturally must have slipped through.
But don't worry, everyone. They made sure to take the time to capitalize all instances of the word "black."
Last year Snopes acquired a site called OnTheIssues which allegedly provides information about political candidates. To which I ask, why is a site that started out as a place for debunking urban myths so heavily invested in politics?
A guy named Chris Richmond invested in Snopes under his Ad company Proper Media, as well as other places like TV Tropes and Salon. They apparently have a dispute over if he owns 50% or 40% of Snopes.
Sorry, don't have time for 20 minute video.
Seems like the TL;DW is that Snopes -- as per usual -- is lying to maintain the usual far-left narrative.
Snopes fact-checks that as: "Mixture" (of lie and truth)
They blatantly lie, and sneak in a second question into the sub-header -- you know, the part almost no one reads -- that says:
The whole article then goes on to insinuate that the lack of coverage in the boy's death is a "conservative conspiracy." At the same time, the article makes sure to preach the usual far-left gospel of BLM and Antifa:
Eventually they reach their conclusion:
Now, you may be wondering how they reached this conclusion? Simple. They say that since CNN did make an article (several days later) and since local affiliates of a couple large MSM outlets had stories, clearly it was not ignored.
As for the other outlets? NYT, WaPo, Reuters, etc, well, Snopes reached out to them for comment, but never heard back.
It's hands down one of the most disingenuous and flagrantly insulting pieces Snopes has done in a while. It obfuscates the truth for silly sophistry and the twisting of the actual truth.
The people at Snopes know that the questions, tweets, social media posts, discussions that they post in their own article are all dated before Aug 14th -- the day CNN finally did release an article. They also willfully misrepresent "Mainstream Media" and pretend that what people were talking about were local affiliates, and not the 24-hour news cycle stations -- who still don't mention it.
They also make no mention of all their cited articles not mentioning race in the headline -- which one would think is the new standard for journalism-- but, because it was black on white and not the other way around it naturally must have slipped through.
But don't worry, everyone. They made sure to take the time to capitalize all instances of the word "black."
Well, yes, it's Snopes.
They also used yahoo news, but from Australia, and AP news(which is just kinda like a backgroudn news agency where other news outlets pull news from).
And to make it look more voluminous, they added an about us page as sources(I'll give it as a benefit of the doubt and that it was a mistake).
Last year Snopes acquired a site called OnTheIssues which allegedly provides information about political candidates. To which I ask, why is a site that started out as a place for debunking urban myths so heavily invested in politics?
A guy named Chris Richmond invested in Snopes under his Ad company Proper Media, as well as other places like TV Tropes and Salon. They apparently have a dispute over if he owns 50% or 40% of Snopes.
An institution increasingly infested with woke cultists is increasingly biased and dishonest in its coverage of current events? I'm shocked.
Thank you for contributing Original Content.