BOKHARI: Why The Left Loves Snopes

A protester wears a Donald Trump mask mask during a demonstration againt the US president in Brussels on May 24, 2017
Bruno Fahy/Getty

The most aggravating leftists are not openly radical ideologues like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but those who, like “Science Guy” Bill Nye, dress up their zealotry in the guise of detached, politically neutral expertise.

In that sense, the “fact-checking” website Snopes, currently begging for donations to stay afloat, is the Bill Nye of the web. In the 1990s, when the website was founded, it could reasonably claim to be an apolitical debunker of popular myths. Today, however, it barely bothers to conceal its left-wing slant.

Snopes allows openly left-wing writers, including former BuzzFeed writer Alex H. Kasprak and Bethania Palma, a Raw Story and Truthout contributor who linked Donald Trump to the KKK and defended a professor’s anti-white comments, to fact-check stories about the right.

Here is a small selection of Palma’s published Raw Story articles, collected by Breitbart’s Charlie Nash:

Some of Palma’s articles include: “Donald Trump has some enthusiastic new admirers: White supremacists“, “The science of white privilege…“, “These conservatives are freaking out about Trump calling for Russian ‘cyber warfare’ against the US“, “WATCH: Donald Trump just gave his most f*cking bonkers press conference yet“, “Anti-debt crusader Rand Paul owes businesses more than $300,000 after failed 2016 campaign“, “Donald Trump Jr. claims Obama ‘plagiarized’ his RNC speech — and is promptly slapped down“, “Right-wing radio host questions the loyalty of Muslim dad whose son died serving US Army in Iraq“, “Republican National Convention staffers scrambling to remove Jim Crow-like ‘white elevators’ signs“, “WATCH: MSNBC interview gets heated when Tamron Hall confronts Trump-loving actor over sexist tweets“, “WATCH: CNN interview on Black Lives Matter spins out of control as conservative sheriff berates host“, and “White woman walks through Chicago’s South Side wearing ‘Black America, I’m sorry’ sign.”

Snopes has allowed the author of these articles to run stories on their own site about the Trump administration and the Republican party:

Snopes has allowed Palma to write most of her fact checks about Donald Trump, his Cabinet, and the Republican Party, despite her strong partisan opinions on those subjects.

Palma has also written two hit-pieces for Snopes on Donald Trump’s White House Chief Strategist and former Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, writing two articles: “Steve Bannon Accused of Domestic Violence” and “Steve Bannon Accused of Having White Supremacist Views” on the same day.

Palma has also fact-checked stories about the alleged ties of the Trump campaign to the Russian government. She rated one such story, about Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia, as a “mixture” of true and false.

If Snopes were allowing left-wingers to fact-check stories about alleged right-wing wrongdoing on the grounds that their political biases would make them keener to reveal the full, grim truth about their reporting subjects, then the website would have a defence. But for this defence to hold, Snopes would have to employ right-wingers to fact-check allegations of left-wing wrongdoing. Does Snopes do this?

Of course not. Stories about Hillary Clinton siding with the Kremlin during her time as Secretary of State, accidentally funding ISIS, and breaking down after the election were all fact-checked by none other than … Bethania Palma. Snopes is allowing partisan left-wingers to fact-check claims about their own side as well as claims about their opponents. Sort of like allowing one hockey team to have goalkeepers on both sides of the rink!

Of course, it’s possible that Snopes simply doesn’t have enough right-wingers on its staff to fact-check claims about Clinton and other Democrats. But that would be a problem in itself, wouldn’t it? How can Snopes possibly remain impartial if it does not audit the political biases of its staffers? And if it does, why haven’t the results of such an audit be made public?

Other organizations that maintain a public front of neutrality, like NPR, the BBC, and CBC could no doubt be asked the same question.

Facebook and Google, the two dominant companies of the web, both use the conclusions Snopes (among other pseudo-neutral fact checkers) to determine whether stories should be labeled “fake news” or not. Google News now adds labels to certain links indicating their status with Snopes and Politifact, while Facebook now adds “fake news” labels to certain stories, again with the help of Snopes.

The left, determined to maintain their dominance of culture, want to be the arbiters of truth. From ever-expanding “hate speech” laws in Europe to their efforts to quash dissent on college campuses, their war to control the flow of information can be seen everywhere. They want nothing less than the ability to determine what kind of information is legal, what kind of information is “hateful,” and what kind of information is true.

Look around, and their weapons are obvious: supposedly impartial news organizations like the BBC, supposedly impartial “scientists” like Bill Nye, and supposedly impartial fact-checkers like Snopes.

That’s why the left-wing media is in a frenzy to assist Snopes’ efforts to stave off financial ruin. Culture warriors need their weapons.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.