The thing I dislike about Snopes the most is how fast they supposedly fact check "trending news" even in cases where it wouldn't be possible.
They either aren't doing their due diligence or are just rushing to get out some page somebody can link that essentially says the equivalent of
Is this news story true? We asked the people involved but they haven't said anything and it's been six hours so here's a bunch of non-related non-journalists saying this story isn't true.
They don't seem to realize that nobody that isn't a bit gullible believes they have completely, undeniably confirmed a story as false in under 24-48 hours.
The thing I dislike about Snopes the most is how fast they supposedly fact check "trending news" even in cases where it wouldn't be possible.
They either aren't doing their due diligence or are just rushing to get out some page somebody can link that essentially says the equivalent of
>Is this news story true? We asked the people involved but they haven't said anything and it's been six hours so here's a bunch of non-related non-journalists saying this story isn't true.
They don't seem to realize that nobody that isn't a bit gullible believes they have completely, undeniably confirmed a story as false in under 24-48 hours.
I didn't even read the article, and I should probably clarify that my statements are about Snopes, not this particular piece. Snopes loves to act like they have some sort of grasp on absolute truth that exceeds us mere mortals, and it comes across as hugely condescending.
I don't even disagree with Snopes most of the time, but journalists of all people should understand that the truth doesn't need gatekeepers. Even when those gatekeepers are good, the systems they put in place are always used to distort the truth if given enough time, which hurts the practice of journalism itself.