Snopes -- Unbiased Info or Agenda Based DisInfo?

I have spent a great deal of time over at Snopes.com over the last few years. I have always had a fascination with urban legends and how quickly and easily they can spread even when they have zero supportive evidence.

Needless to say, snopes has provided me with a great deal of entertainment and amusement over those years.

However, in the last little while, I have noticed a bit of a slant over at snopes.


While they tend to be pretty straightforward about the less touchy subjects, when it comes to issues about the government, religion and other touchy topics, it seems that snopes puts a good deal of information out there that is a bit less than fair, balanced and honest. As a matter of fact, I find it to be even less reliable and fair on certain subjects than the ever popular (and equally entertaining and informative) Wikipedia.

Am I the only one who has noticed this? Maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there.



Either way, I still find it to be an entertaining site, even if it is not the most reliable one out there.


Hey, not every place on the net can be ATS.


Jasn

I'd never heard of Snopes. So the first thing I click on aspartame, and they poo-poo all the warnings about it citing studies by the FDA that claim it's harmless. The FDA? There's a trustworthy source! Not quite exacting methodology. Apparently they aren't aware of New Mexico trying to ban it. Or do they think New Mexico legislates based on urban myths? Or maybe the New Mexico legislation is an urban myth itself! They don't seem to be aware of these 85 independent studies collected by the Center for Behavioral Medicine finding a variety of ills associated directly with aspartame. Hell, I do a lot better research than they do and I don't even have a website.

So yep, I see what you mean about their not being altogether fair and balanced, although I didn't bother clicking on anything else.

reply to post by yuefo



Aspartame was one of my first realizations about Snopes as well.


A Personal Story:

I drank diet soda for 3 years between the years of 1997 and 2000, I now have almost ZERO memory of anything that happened to me between 1998 and 2000. Also, after being straight A student my whole life (I was, what you call, "gifted" hahaha), my GPA dropped from a 3.9 my sophomore year to a 2.7 by the time I graduated. Even though I still omprehended everything perfectly my junior and senior year, I couldn't retain the information longer than a day or so.

Within 6 months of switching to water and eliminating the diet soda, my problem ceased and my college grades and information retention returned to normal.



Moral of the story? Aspartame shoots holes in your brain worse than tequila, and that's BAD!!!! (any of you former tequila lovers out there can vouch for this hahah)


jasn

Well I guess there's no need to preach the evils of aspartame to you. That's really messed up.

On another thread about aspartame just a couple days ago I posted the opinion of a doctor regarding Michael J. Fox. Scary stuff. What really interested me in the thread though was that it was so similar to a UFO debate, wherein the skeptics take the government, or "rational," or consensus side vs the unconventional or contrary approach. People really have a tendency to gravitate to authority figures to do their thinking for them. Why is that? Don't you think if the government came out tomorrow and said, yes, UFOs are real, the same debunkers would quickly throw out all their "no proof" arguments and agree?



[edit on 10/16/2007 by yuefo]

Ive found discrepancies with Snopes.com before.

I wont get into the specifics, because I dont have the pics needed to show you snopes is incorrect, but I agree their information is sometimes biased.

reply to post by yuefo


hehe you are right, no need. You'd just be "preachin to the choir"


Jasn