
Snopes Under Legal Attack from Salon.com - jacquesm
https://www.snopes.com/we-wish-we-had-better-news/
======
mcv
This article is very light on details. Apparently, this lawsuit has its source
in the divorce between David and Barbara Mikkelsen, the two founders of
Snopes. Barbara sold her shares to a couple of people who also owned the
company that handled advertising for Snopes. That company, Proper Media, at
some point withheld ad revenue from Snopes which nearly killed Snopes[0]. Now
they have acquired Salon, and this article makes it sound like they're using
Salon's resources to continue the legal battle, but I have no idea if that's
the case.

It would have been nice if Snopes of all sites had provided a bit more
background on this, though I suppose they can never be considered impartial on
their own legal struggles, so perhaps they're right to keep this brief.

[0] [https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/salon-media-sold-
for-5-million...](https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/salon-media-sold-
for-5-million-to-tech-entrepreneurs/)

~~~
duxup
"Barbara sold her shares to a couple of people who also owned the company that
handled advertising for Snopes."

That really reads like a decision just bound to bring up more conflict...

~~~
hinkley
You don't think that was the plan? Sounds to me like the sort of thing that
happens all the time in messy divorces.

------
papreclip
I have kind of soured on snopes since the 2016 election. Their political fact-
checking includes a heavy dose of spin, framing issues with certain wording so
that they can say "mostly false" with a big red X on their own strawman, so
that you have to read between the lines to realize that what's true is
actually the crux of the matter.

Snopes used to strictly be a site you linked someone to disprove urban
legends, and that good reputation is now being wielded in a partisan political
battle

~~~
dkonofalski
>framing issues with certain wording

I've seen this repeated a few times now. Can you provide an example?

~~~
papreclip
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-
president...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/)

They haven't said anything untruthful here. But imagine the site were run by
republicans - the framing would be different. The claim would be "5 of 6"
instead of "every", allowing them to print a big green checkmark graphic, and
supporting details for each attempt

~~~
nickthemagicman
They're literally responding to a republican meme that phrases the question
exactly that way? The meme itself is posted in that page. I think you might be
projecting.

~~~
papreclip
To me there's not such a big difference between resorting to a totally
original straw man and picking the weakest argument among those different
individuals on the other side of party lines have put forward. This snopes
article serves as a catchall for claims about democratic attempts to impeach.
There's no separate article for a different wording of the meme.

And even if this were the only way anyone had worded the claim, it still
merits a "partially true" or "mostly true".

I deliberately avoided putting specific examples in my first post because I
didn't want to quibble over the specifics. Spin is spin, it's not outright
lying. Snopes isn't going to bend the truth to such a degree that a democrat,
when confronted with the article, would be forced to admit they are dirty
rotten liars.

~~~
dkonofalski
>And even if this were the only way anyone had worded the claim, it still
merits a "partially true" or "mostly true".

How so? At best, only 2 of the last 6 Presidents were actually called for
impeachment by the Democratic party and, at worst, it was 3 if you count Nixon
which was bi-partisan. How does that make the claim, in any way, "mostly true"
or even "partially true"?

------
dkonofalski
This is really sad to me. Snopes, for the most part, is pretty impartial with
their fact-checking and I think it's an invaluable resource. If it were to go
away and be replaced with something less established, it would be the end of
an era and all because they don't have enough money to protect themselves from
the litigation of a larger company. If that doesn't show you our legal system
is effed, then I don't know what does. Victims can literally be silenced
simply by being drowned in litigation by someone with more money.

~~~
wl
Snopes fact-checking the satire site Babylon Bee suggests to me that their
days of being a valuable resource are over. Any reasonable people at Snopes
apparently no longer have any influence.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_Those who weren’t following us when we began back in the mid-1990s and have
only more lately encountered our fact-checking efforts sometimes ask us why we
address humorous and satirical articles at Snopes.com. And the plain answer to
that question is, “Because people ask us about them.”_

[https://www.snopes.com/notes/why-we-include-humor-and-
satire...](https://www.snopes.com/notes/why-we-include-humor-and-satire-in-
snopes-com/)

Articles from sites like _Babylon Bee_ \-- hell, even from _The Onion,_ in
more than one case -- get stripped of context, quoted, slapped on meme GIFs,
and traded around by folks who don't know (or sometimes don't care) about the
source. Another quote from the linked article:

 _If Clickhole (an offshoot of the Onion humor /satire site) publishes a new
article, and within a day 1,200 different people have queried us to ask if
that article is “true,” then clearly Clickhole isn’t well known to those 1,200
people. They, and others like them, are the audience we’re attempting to reach
and inform that Clickhole is a humor site — not, obviously, the many people
who follow Clickhole and therefore know that the site’s material is not
intended to be factual._

In our current highly-politicized environment, there's a subset -- and not an
insignificant one -- of the population which is _very_ ready to believe the
worst about "The Other Side". The web site _The Conversation_ surveyed over
800 people to ask about the most shared fake political stories on social media
during a two-week period, and _The Babylon Bee_ came up in their results:

"Members of both parties failed to recognize that The Babylon Bee is satire,
but Republicans were considerably more likely to do so. Of the 23 falsehoods
that came from The Bee, eight were confidently believed by at least 15% of
Republican respondents."

[https://theconversation.com/too-many-people-think-
satirical-...](https://theconversation.com/too-many-people-think-satirical-
news-is-real-121666)

I'm not suggesting this is a sign that Republicans are more gullible, per se
-- I'm suggesting it's a sign that when people are fed satire _that plays into
their biases_ and that satire is played with an Onion-style perfectly straight
face, more people than you think believe it. That means there's going to be
way more than you think who say, "Hey, is that true?"... and go to snopes.com
to find out.

Even, yes, if the quote is from _The Babylon Bee._

~~~
bhk
Hold on there.

What was believed by significant percentage of people were "claims" from
satirical articles. For example, "CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said his
belief that Trump colluded with Russia is unshakable; it will not change
regardless of statements or evidence to the contrary." or "National Security
Advisor John Bolton said that an attack on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in
the Gulf of Oman is “an attack on all Americans.”"

When taken out of context, it could appear entirely plausible (though
unlikely) that Anderson Cooper or John Bolton really said that. People say
weird things all the time. Only when the context of a satirical article is
given would we expect someone to understand.

An article like the CNN industrial washer story would clearly not be believed
by a significant percentage of people.

~~~
nkrisc
Clearly I'm in the minority of the public here, but both those claims are so
outrageous that even if Reuters reported them I would be checking other
sources as well to see if they got duped or hacked, or who knows what.

~~~
jacquesm
It's happened more than once in the last couple of months that I came across
actual news and had to do a double take and check to see if I'm accidentally
on a satirical page. Just today:

"Trump says Republicans should release their own transcripts in impeachment
probe"

You think that's satire? Here's the news article:

[https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-
say...](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468788-trump-says-
republicans-should-release-their-own-versions-of)

Not a line in there to suggest this is nonsense (which it is), here it is
directly from the Ass's mouth:

[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11938962750931845...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1193896275093184512)

Parody account? It has 'real' in it... You be the judge.

~~~
derision
Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in
statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry
picked parts of testimonies to support his narrative. Trump is suggesting the
republicans release transcripts too, to better represent what's happening in
the hearings.

~~~
jacquesm
Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.

~~~
beerandt
Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.

~~~
jacquesm
To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially
because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately
jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do
something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim
opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff.

Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere
paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say _anything_ and it would
not damage his reputation.

~~~
beerandt
Schiff's reputation doesn't ride on twisting of words, it rides on how much
he's participating in the activities that he's supposed to be in charge of
investigating.

Nobody's saying pick a side between the two. Be sceptical of _every_
politician. Don't pick either one as your character reference for a narrative.

(That said, I don't mean any of the following to be exonerating _or_ damning
to Trump.)

I find it troubling that Schiff appears to have taken an abrupt change in
strategy, once he was accused of meeting with the "whistleblower" before the
claim was filed. The timeline doesn't look good, especially when considering
the change in IG whistleblower rules.

And cherry-picked leaks are a giant problem in DC right now.

Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told
(coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

And that applies no matter how innocent or guilty Trump is of anything.

~~~
jacquesm
I'd say meeting with the whistleblower is _well_ within the job description
for the leader of the committee.

As for being skeptical of every politician, Schiff has so far been pretty
clean in all this as opposed to the counterparty, who seem to have made a
bonfire of all the rulebooks and are running the United States over a cliff at
a speed that I would have considered impossible a decade ago. Suddenly all
those questions about how Germany could have slid off as fast as it did from
being a reasonable country to a totalitarian state make good sense. All it
takes is a small bag of money, a couple of Stephen Millers and you're good to
go.

The _good news_ if you can call it good news is that they are going about it
in the most stupid way possible and that just maybe there is an outside chance
that the United States constitution was drawn up in such a way that this
travesty can be brought to a halt. I fear it may be too late though, with the
recent stacking of the Supreme Court and the way in which all these puppets
are in various pockets we may very well be in the endgame for that country and
what it stood for.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, but that doesn't mean
they're out to get you for the wrong reasons. You may simply deserve being
'got' and put in jail. In the case of the Trump family and their grifting
hangers on that's a slam dunk, that they just might end up being censored (at
worst) or pushed out (at best) because some people come to their senses and
put their country over their party is about equal to getting Al Capone on tax
evasion. Works for me though.

> Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told
> (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place.

Not sure if you are aware of it but the 'transcript' of the call was published
by Trump and the transcripts of the various depositions appear to have been
made without any coaching whatsoever, if you sincerely believe that witnesses
have been coached then you have crossed a line somewhere that you probably
should not have crossed.

~~~
beerandt
Why must everyone act like criticism of other politicians is somehow defending
Trump?

The _committee_ could question him, on the record. Oversight responsibilities
are, by definition, reactive, hands off, public, and transparent. Any one-on-
one should have been through the IG, not Schiff.

Regardless, impeachment is an inherently political process (as was intended),
which means optics matter. And Schiff has really screwed this aspect of it up,
no matter how "relatively clean" he might seem compared to other politicians.

If there's one thing Americans hate more than corrupt politicians, it's
hypocritical corrupt politicians. If there are two things, it's that and being
backed into a corner, politically.

Both are reasons why Trump was elected in the first place, even though I'd
argue most of his voters weren't as thrilled about voting for him as he'd have
you believe.

Schiff's methods are only serving to stir this up again, regardless of whether
some think the ends justify the means.

>if you sincerely believe that witnesses have been coached then you have
crossed a line somewhere that you probably should not have crossed.

Because politicians would never do something so corrupt? We'll see what comes
out. But at this point, Schiff needs to do some serious disclosures on what
was discussed between him and the witnesses before the report was filed,
including if he suggested waiting on the timing, for the IG rule change.

Which is why he should never have put himself in that position to begin with.
It soils the integrity of the entire thing. It stops looking like an
investigation, and starts looking like an orchestrated coup.

If Al Capone's prosecutor would have been caught doing such things, they
wouldn't have even gotten him on the tax charges.

If Trump gets impeached, but the prosecution looks dirty, it'll all but
guarantee he's re-elected. The sense of injustice will motivate voters far
more than whoever's name happens to be on the ballet.

I'm not saying that's what _should_ happen, only what's likely.

------
grepthisab
I hadn't heard about this, and there's nothing in the main article posted
about the origins. I went to their gofundme and read a bunch of updates, and
was able to find this article. Seems to stem from an alleged breach of
contract. As an anonymous internet commentator and IAAL, I will say that a
skim of the complaints and various actions leads me to believe that Salon
group is acting in bad faith, and the various courts who have ruled agree with
that view. Poor Snopes. :(

The complaint:

[http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Snopes-
COM...](http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Snopes-
COMPLAINT.pdf)

From here:

[https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2017/snopes-is-
locked-...](https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-
legal-battle-for-control-of-its-website/)

A snippet:

The relationship between the two companies stretches back to the fall of 2015,
when Bardav founder David Mikkelson inked a deal with Proper Media to manage
all content and advertising accounts for Snopes, according to the complaint.
Mikkelson terminated that agreement in spring 2017, according to the document.

“Our termination of the contract was fully in accord with the cancellation
provisions of that contract,” he told Poynter in an email. “The contract was
terminated because it was highly disadvantageous to us.”

A month after Proper Media filed its legal complaint, Bardav filed a cross-
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego County alleging
four claims, including breach of contract.

“Proper Media failed to perform its contractual and legal obligations, and
Bardav eventually terminated the contract in accordance with its terms,” the
document reads. “Proper Media is now wrongfully withholding money owed to
Bardav and effectively holding the Snopes.com website hostage by preventing
Bardav from moving the website, advertising and other back-end functions to
another service provider.”

Bardav signed over a share of Snopes’ revenue to Proper Media in exchange for
web services such as management of its back-end advertising platform,
according to the cross-complaint. Proper Media alleges in its original
complaint, which was filed in early May, that it still has a valid, written
contract that the company upheld until Bardav withheld the “accounts, tools
and data” it needed to manage Snopes’ operations. The complaint alleges that
Mikkelson himself breached the agreement by canceling it.

~~~
dkonofalski
That's great context. Thanks for the response. Very helpful in understanding
what's going on since Snopes seems reluctant to offer more detail on it,
understandably.

------
RankingMember
Snopes, from my memory, was the original place to point people who email-
forwarded old wives tales and other such junk that would otherwise spread
uncorrected. Hang in there Snopes!

~~~
empath75
I remember after a few months of being forwarded on stupid urban legend email
chains by my mom, I started replying all on her messages with links to snopes.

Did that stop her from sending around stupid emails without verifying them?
No, but it did stop her from forwarding them to _me_, which is I guess a kind
of victory.

------
abvdasker
It should be illegal to abuse the legal system in this way.

~~~
turc1656
Technically, it is. The relevant law is called anti-SLAPP

~~~
rtkwe
This seems more like a contract dispute spun way out of control than your
standard SLAPP suit.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21514478](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21514478)

~~~
Nasrudith
Why not both? The possibilities don't preclude each other - that there is and
it is an attempt to abuse the courts to silence.

~~~
rtkwe
It could be, it's hard to rule out that but the parties are both owners which
feels like an odd occurrence for a SLAPP suit. It makes sense as a contract
dispute but not much as a SLAPP suit.

If it is a SLAPP suit what are the advertisers for Snopes trying to prevent
Snopes from publishing?

------
lisper
I love Snopes, but this is one of the worst expositions I've ever seen because
it assumes that the reader is already familiar with the situation. The first
sentence is:

> We wish we had better news, but they have filed another appeal.

Who is "they"? Appeal of what? There isn't even a link to any background
material so that someone who wants to come up to speed can. If you're not
already in the know, you're out of luck. This is absolutely shocking for a
site whose entire raison d'etre is to combat misinformation.

It pains me to say this, but if this is what Snopes has come to I have to
wonder if they still deserve suppport.

------
Angostura
FWIW, I've just hit the 'donate' button. This is a resource that deserves to
be defended.

~~~
codezero
For all the sanity snopes has brought to the internet I’m surprised it’s been
so long and I never have donated to them. I dropped $50. Thanks for the good
advice :)

------
equalunique
Can't say I have much confidence in Snopes. Over the years, I have seen at
least a few Snopes articles on topics beginning with "FALSE" which then go on
to list several facts supporting the notion that the claim actually is true,
but then defer the final word to so-called experts, who arguably have a
conflict of interest in said matters.

------
swebs
Why? Aren't they on the same side?

------
covercash
Sounds a lot like a SLAPP suit, something John Oliver covered this week:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU)

~~~
voxic11
Does it though? Is there any evidence you have that this suite is being
brought in order prevent public participation from snopes? The suite seems to
be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising. This
may be an abuse of the system but its not a SLAPP.

~~~
DonHopkins
Since Snopes has already won an "anti-SLAPP" legal motion against Proper
Media's defamation case against Snopes, I'd say that's evidence that Proper
Media is abusing the system in a way that's subject to anti-SLAPP statutes.

[https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-
slapp.pdf](https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-slapp.pdf)

Snopes Prevails in Anti-SLAPP Motion. Truth is "an absolute defense to any
libel action." SNOPES STAFF, PUBLISHED 16 AUGUST 2019.

[https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-
motion/](https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-motion/)

>Snopes filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Proper Media, Schoentrup, and
Richmond, and as expected, the Snopes fact-checkers prevailed. The court held
that the statements in question were true, were not defamatory, and/or were
published outside the one-year statute of limitations, and therefore struck
down the claims brought against Snopes based on those allegedly defamatory
statements.

Ironically, here's a Salon article about SLAPP lawsuits:

Real free speech threat isn't on campus: Rich use courts to silence foes. How
the wealthy use frivolous lawsuits to silence activists, journalists and even
victims of sexual violence. AMANDA MARCOTTE. SEPTEMBER 12, 2018.

[https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-
isn...](https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-isnt-on-
campus-rich-use-courts-to-silence-foes/)

~~~
voxic11
That was a separate lawsuit and as you mention they already won it.

~~~
DonHopkins
It was a successful "legal motion" "TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT" from Proper Media's defamation case, not a "suite" (sic) nor a
"separate lawsuit" as you claim.

You could try reading the document I linked to. It's all there in stark black
and white:

"By cutting off Snopes’ primary source of revenue and stymying its ability to
pay legal fees, Plaintiffs hoped they could bring Snopes to its knees." ...
"Plaintiffs’ claims are exactly what California’s anti-SLAPP statute is
designed to prevent. This motion is proper because the challenged claims are a
calculated effort by Plaintiffs to obtain an economic advantage over Snopes by
expanding the scope of litigation, driving up legal costs, and chilling
Snopes’ fundraising efforts."

You said "The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the
profits from advertising."

It states quite clearly and addresses your point that that those profits from
advertising were Snopes' primary source of revenue, which they used to pay
their legal fees. Which is why they they won the anti-SLAPP motion.

Do you still have any misunderstanding now?

------
RiOuseR
Salon.com... yuck.

What an echo chamber of millennial leftist garbage. I think Buzzfeed news is
better journalism than Salon, and thats really saying something.

~~~
dang
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and use HN as intended, regardless of how strongly you feel about websites?

------
jayess
Also relevant: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-
bee.htm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.html)

~~~
dkonofalski
How is that relevant?

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
Honestly, I really don't care if sites like Snopes or Wikipedia shut down or
disappear. While I appreciate what they provide and what they at least claim
to provide, no one should be considered the gate-keepers of all that is not
"fake news". BTW I did donate to Wikipedia this year...

~~~
reitoei
They're not gatekeepers, they present facts. It's up to you whether or not to
believe them.

~~~
Jamwinner
Group sourced refrences, summarized by often biased volunteers, are not
'facts'.

~~~
dkonofalski
Wikipedia, in a random sampling of information, came in as equally or more
reliable than nearly any other privately published reference. It's not perfect
but it doesn't have to be.

