I guess reality really DOES have a liberal bias…

We are in no way saying that people should stop using Snopes.com…We would only encourage everyone to carefully consider any political bias in ANY article you read, when evaluating for truth. It’s always best to read a variety of sources before coming to a conclusion on any controversial topic.

Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic Party to promote Barack Obama- Fiction!
Summary of the eRumor:
An eRumor about Snopes.com accusing them being owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.

The Truth:
In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was “in the tank” for presidential candidate Barack Obama.

As with many forwarded emails, the criticism did not include any example of what the writer of the email claimed was the difference between what Snopes.com reported and what Barack Obama had actually said.

Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.

We can give a unique perspective on this story because we do the same kind of work as Snopes.com and have sometimes been the target of similar criticism.

We’ve got a collection of emails that have come to TruthOrFiction.com accusing us of being “right wing whackos” as well as “liberals” and “communists.” We’ve been suspected of being owned and operated by both Republicans and Democrats. We’ve been called “Christian propagandists” as well as “atheists pretending to be neutral.” We occasionally receive emails that have elaborate theories about who “really” owns us and what our “real” motives are.

The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don’t like the truth you’ve reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did.

That, in our view, is what is happening with Snopes.

The 2008 presidential campaign has been one of the most intense and unique in our nation’s history and has prompted more political eRumors than any presidential campaign in our experience, especially about Barack Obama.

These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him.

One of the versions of the eRumor mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we’ve had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.

******updated 10/21/08*********
A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama or others actually saying these things. So it’s up to you, but what is the value of “truth or fiction” checks if the source is faulty? I simply can’t trust Snopes.com….ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. This website is backing Obama and is covering up for him. They will say anything that makes him look bad is a hoax and they also tell lies on the other side about McCain and Palin.

Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

It had nothing to do with the joke (which was lame to begin with). And My first thought was about whether or not it violated campaign regulations.

They put forth a weak argument and then refute that argument–again, it wasn’t a joke, it was more like a free campaign ad.

They are spinning this so much that smoke is rising.

Like Clinton, a decade ago, if it was just his personal business to have sex in the Oval office, then why all the energy put forth to cover it up.

Same thing now. If the Obama/Ayers connection is so tenuous, then why the heavily orchestrated campaign?