Snopes Beclowns Itself

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Brainster
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,873
I've never been impressed by Snopes; they seem to cherry pick what needs to be investigoogled and what doesn't deserve scrutiny.

In this article, they examine the claim that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame stole his recipe from a black woman named Miss Childress, who is shown in a picture.

Now, despite the fact that Snopes managed to track down the picture (which appears to have been painted for a 1921 advertisement), and despite the fact that they cannot find any mention of Miss Childress or the notion the Colonel Sanders stole his recipe from a black woman, they rule the claim "unproven" although in the subhead that accompanies the article they say "alludes to a deeper truth."

What is that deeper truth, you ask?

Other black women have had their recipes stolen by whites:

However, Williams-Forson emphasized that a history does exist of white entrepreneurs and chefs taking recipes from African American women and men, without giving them proper credit. She pointed to the example of Idella Parker, who was a long-time maid to the white cookbook author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, and later an author in her own right.
Click to expand...

Basically, although there is zero evidence for it in this case and lots of evidence the other way (which Snopes does cite), gosh it's unproven and if you don't read past the headline you'd think there was some truth to the claim instead of just "truth."
 
"Unproven" is what Snopes calls any claim that can't be verified. There's nothing wrong with this claim being ruled "unproven".

And no, nobody would see "unproven" and think "there must be some truth to this".
 
In the articles I've read it seems that their standard is to list a claim as unproven if there isn't evidence proving or disproving it, reserving false for claims with clear evidence against them or clear evidence of fabrication.

Seems like a reasonable standard. Why should you expect them to call this particular claim false?
 
I think Brainster seems to take exception to the article pointing out that, historically, white entrepreneurs have been known to take credit for recipes or other fruits of labor or ingenuity by people of color, and would have preferred if Snopes omitted that context altogether and simply declared that the lack of corroborating evidence for this specific claim makes it "false".
 
How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?
 
Last edited:
It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40.

Cooks without the Col's franchise called it "Broasting".

And anybody who has ever cooked anything knows the value of technique. Was Childress Broasting?

But yeah, Snopes has a liberal/SJW bent. They have admitted it.

I wonder if anybody has ever run the Col's genes? Any black % would have been hidden back in those days.
 
Brainster said:
How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?
Click to expand...

Because for nearly all modern falsities that it addresses, Snopes tries not just to determine a rumor's objective factuality, but also tries to investigate the origins and foundations of the rumor. In this case, it's worth noting that the reason this particular rumor has legs is because, again, white entrepreneurs "stealing" credit for minorities' work is a historical thing. The context helps explain why the rumor exists.

Anyone who has read Snopes since the early days is familiar with how it adds context to rumors like this; it's not a "new" thing.
 
casebro said:
It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40. Cooks without the Col's franchise called it "Broasting"....
Click to expand...


^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Now go watch the appropriate Good Eats Episode.
 
Brainster said:
How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?
Click to expand...

What is the much evidence it is false, rather than absence of evidence that it is true?

Further, "Snopes beclowns itself"? Based on the label of not proven (the conservatively correct conclusion) vs false? Silly exaggeration not based on the facts.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?
Click to expand...

In other words, "Unproven"*

Evidence doesn't work the way you think it does. A claim of "False" requires exculpatory evidence, i.e. a smoking gun that show the claim to be definitely untrue.


* That said, I would like to see them reach a conclusion of "Unlikely" in this sort of situation.
 
I actually have seen snopes get things wrong before.

This is not one of those cases.

Anything where they can't prove it was fabricated gets the "unproven" verdict. It's always been that way.
 
kellyb said:
I actually have seen snopes get things wrong before.

This is not one of those cases.

Anything where they can't prove it was fabricated gets the "unproven" verdict. It's always been that way.
Click to expand...

Agreed

For Brainster's further education

"Unproven
This rating indicates that insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. This rating typically involves claims for which there is little or no affirmative evidence, but for which declaring them to be false would require the difficult (if not impossible) task of our being able to prove a negative or accurately discern someone else’s thoughts and motivations.​

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/

Those of us who like check facts understand how evidence works. (and in any case, why would a Trump supporter even be interested in facts?)
 
Snopes does that a lot. It's not held as evidence of anything, just precedent. It's not a simple fact-check site you see a lot now in CNN and elsewhere, never has been.
 
smartcooky said:
"Unproven
This rating indicates that insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. This rating typically involves claims for which there is little or no affirmative evidence, but for which declaring them to be false would require the difficult (if not impossible) task of our being able to prove a negative or accurately discern someone else’s thoughts and motivations.​

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/

Those of us who like check facts understand how evidence works.
Click to expand...

Good job finding that; I had briefly looked earlier if such a list of explanations existed, but ran out of free time and subsequently forgot about it. It definitely shows that Snopes' designation in this case is both consistent with its own practice and with the generally accepted "rules" of handling claims and evidence.

Perhaps this thread would've been better titled "ISF Poster Beclowns Myself".
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
"Beclown" apparently means "didn't say what I wanted them to say based on my biases."
Click to expand...

What a pity! Inspired by the "trash TV" thread I was imagining a new show where random people get makeovers into clowns, like it or not, with prizes for the most successful beclowning team.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What a pity! Inspired by the "trash TV" thread I was imagining a new show where random people get makeovers into clowns, like it or not, with prizes for the most successful beclowning team.
Click to expand...

Every week’s winer: a trump supporter given a book and asked about its content.
 
Brainster said:
I've never been impressed by Snopes; they seem to cherry pick what needs to be investigoogled and what doesn't deserve scrutiny.
Click to expand...
That seems to be a common complaint about fact-checkers. Why can't they have infinite resources to check all-the-things? It's almost like they have to prioritize which claims they check based on some criteria that doesn't necessarily match critics' priorities.

FYI, they published their "cherry picking" process on their website under About Us > Transparency
Topic Selection
Unlike many other sites in the online fact-checking world, at Snopes.com we do not exclusively focus on politics (although political fact-checking makes up a large portion of our work). We have long observed the principle that we write about whatever items the greatest number of readers are asking about or searching for at any given time, without any partisan considerations.

We don’t choose or exclude items for coverage based on whether they deal with Republican/Democratic, conservative/liberal, or religious/secular issues. We also don’t impose our own judgments about whether a given item’s perceived importance, controversiality, obviousness, or superficiality (or lack thereof) merit our addressing it.

We are, of course, limited in how much we can cover by our available resources and staffing.

[snip]
Click to expand...

Brainster said:
Basically, although there is zero evidence for it in this case and lots of evidence the other way (which Snopes does cite), gosh it's unproven and if you don't read past the headline you'd think there was some truth to the claim instead of just "truth."
Click to expand...
Others have pointed out that this is a ridiculous thing to argue. I would just like to add my voice to theirs.
 
casebro said:
It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40.

Cooks without the Col's franchise called it "Broasting".

And anybody who has ever cooked anything knows the value of technique. Was Childress Broasting?

But yeah, Snopes has a liberal/SJW bent. They have admitted it.
I wonder if anybody has ever run the Col's genes? Any black % would have been hidden back in those days.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
I use Snopes often to find out if the current meme I'm asked to believe on Facebook is meaningful. Unfortunately if I post a link to Snopes instead of a link they used, then more often than not I'm told Snopes is biased. I'm sure they are to an extent.

But when ever I ask to see an example of Snopes bias from a complainer on Facebook, they have nothing. One guy came close when he linked to an article about Snopes bias, but the article was general in nature and did not link to any certain Snopes article.

Ranb
 
smartcooky said:
Agreed

For Brainster's further education

"Unproven
This rating indicates that insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. This rating typically involves claims for which there is little or no affirmative evidence, but for which declaring them to be false would require the difficult (if not impossible) task of our being able to prove a negative or accurately discern someone else’s thoughts and motivations.​

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/

Those of us who like check facts understand how evidence works. (and in any case, why would a Trump supporter even be interested in facts?)
Click to expand...

I like Snopes and I thought it was a good article myself, although I might quibble with the rating. I suspect that some claims there rated "False" in the past haven't been more disproven than this one.

Since they found that the actual picture of "Mrs. Childress" was from a magazine advertisement, does that not prove, at least, that the person making the claim is a liar? I think we can be fairly certain that Colonel Sanders didn't steal the recipe from the woman in the photograph. It's hard to prove a negative, but when you find that the actual photograph is from an advertisement, I think that's enough to rule it out.
 
Surely the photograph provably not being of "Mrs Childress" can't be called evidence that Colonel Sanders didn't steal the recipe from a woman named Mrs Childress.
 
Checkmite said:
Surely the photograph provably not being of "Mrs Childress" can't be called evidence that Colonel Sanders didn't steal the recipe from a woman named Mrs Childress.
Click to expand...

They don't even know her full name or whether she's a "Mrs." or a "Miss".

Think about it.
 
Checkmite said:
I think Brainster seems to take exception to the article pointing out that, historically, white entrepreneurs have been known to take credit for recipes or other fruits of labor or ingenuity by people of color, and would have preferred if Snopes omitted that context altogether and simply declared that the lack of corroborating evidence for this specific claim makes it "false".
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I've never been impressed by Snopes
Click to expand...


Love Snopes. Every time one of my friends copies a post about why we should be mad at some school district, or that there's a missing little girl, Snopes is my first stop.

A picture of a teen holding a sign asking people to share her post so she'd stop being bullied popped up in my thread today. The picture was from 2015 and Snopes went to lengths to track down the exact school and their response back then (which was swift and decisive).

Snopes is your friend.
 
Loss Leader said:
Love Snopes. Every time one of my friends copies a post about why we should be mad at some school district, or that there's a missing little girl, Snopes is my first stop.

A picture of a teen holding a sign asking people to share her post so she'd stop being bullied popped up in my thread today. The picture was from 2015 and Snopes went to lengths to track down the exact school and their response back then (which was swift and decisive).

Snopes is your friend.
Click to expand...

Just never forget "Trust but verify". They are not 100% correct. (And they asserted there are few "intentionally" wrong articles.)
 
Klimax said:
Just never forget "Trust but verify". They are not 100% correct. (And they asserted there are few "intentionally" wrong articles.)
Click to expand...

No, of course not. Everyone makes mistakes.

However, I feel like the criticisms leveled against Snopes in this thread are more properly aimed at reality’s infamous and well known liberal bias.
 
3point14 said:
What's the alternative to the above?
Click to expand...

They investigate all claims?

Well of course they can't do that, so they have to be selective.

I think the real complaint is that they only or mostly check claims made by conservatives (although this one is an exception).
 
Puppycow said:
I think the real complaint is that they only or mostly check claims made by conservatives (although this one is an exception).
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the complaint. One of them, anyway.

Is it a legitimate complaint or does it suggest confirmation bias on the art of the complainer? Are people merely remembering the times Snopes debunked conservative claims and forgetting when they debunked liberal claims? Or, far more often, Snopes mostly debunks non-partisan off-the-wall claims that former high school classmates share on Facebook and politics has nothing to do with it?
 
Upchurch said:
Is it a legitimate complaint or does it suggest confirmation bias on the art of the complainer?
Click to expand...

If they do address conservative-leaning ones more often it may simply be because conservative ones are more common or are shared more often.
 
Brainster said:
I've never been impressed by Snopes; they seem to cherry pick what needs to be investigoogled and what doesn't deserve scrutiny.

In this article, they examine the claim that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame stole his recipe from a black woman named Miss Childress, who is shown in a picture.

Now, despite the fact that Snopes managed to track down the picture (which appears to have been painted for a 1921 advertisement), and despite the fact that they cannot find any mention of Miss Childress or the notion the Colonel Sanders stole his recipe from a black woman, they rule the claim "unproven" although in the subhead that accompanies the article they say "alludes to a deeper truth."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't believe they didn't reach a definite conclusion in the absence of definite evidence. What do they think they are, skeptics?
 
jadebox said:
If they do address conservative-leaning ones more often it may simply be because conservative ones are more common or are shared more often.
Click to expand...

Indeed. One glance at Reddit’s r/forwardsfromgrandma and you’ll notice grandma ain’t on the left side of the spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom