It seems every day someone new is being accused of being the "L" word, even the conservatives themselves. Liberal has almost come to mean "not in lock step with the far right". If you don't think just like Rush, you're a liberal. Even David Frum, a pro-Iraq war staunch conservative, has been under fire for his concern over Rush's prominence in the party.
It just seems like we are on a modern day witch hunt where we just slap the label "liberal" on anyone that disagrees with our position. Whatever happened to discourse and the ability to disagree?
I recently received an e-mail from someone dear to me. It was a forwarded e-mail purporting that Snopes has a liberal bias. The saddest part of the entire e-mail is that it doesn't matter. Most of the time people go to Snopes to find out if you really can explode from using your cell phone while filling your tank or if someone can steal your identity by calling your cell and having you punch in a code. This is a place where liberal bias would have almost no meaning.
However, someone was pissed off, and, instead of applying a logical, analytical approach, they decided to apply a knee-jerk label and mass distribute libel to all their friends (not that being liberal is bad, but there are other accusations in the e-mail).
I am reprinting the e-mail and my reply below. I have only altered my reply slightly, mostly to embed links (they were full URLs before). Although I am more concerned by those that propagated this smear, than the bonehead who started it, I must say that my reply was not directed at the sender, per se, but at the group as a whole: those that would indiscriminately try to smear others and those that would blindly propagate the smear.
The e-mail:
FINALLY, someone pursued this so called "AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE" and exposed them for what they are - "LIBERAL'S"
and putting out the same information we are getting from Washington, D.C.
Now we ALL know !!!
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.comclaiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are a very Democratic (party) and extremely LIBERAL I found this to be true during the recent elaection where anything NEGATIVE about BO was false--A much better source, at least not Bias is "true or fiction".As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com
My response:
** sigh ** yet another conspiracy theory.
So, the author doesn't feel Snopes is authoritative because it is run by only two people. So why is his e-mail, substantiated by no one, supposed to sway us?
Not only am I not shocked to hear that Snopes is only two people strong, the wikipedia article says so.
But, oh noes! Wikipedia has been said to have a liberal bias too! EVERYTHING has been said to have a liberal bias.
Yawn! Why can't people just apply logic? Look, the e-mail is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors showing someone who does not apply due diligence, which is probably true of his or her research. What's more, it is blatantly obvious it is from someone who has an axe to grind, and it provides no substantiation. We are supposed to believe this person because he or she says Snopes has a liberal bias. What?!? Who cares!?! I don't read Snopes to decide who to vote for, I read it to determine if there really is a e-mail virus out there or my cell phone is at risk or any number of non-political issues, but even when it is political, it seems to be even handed.
I am so sick of EVERYTHING supposedly having a liberal bias. That is why God gave me a brain: so I can take information in, analyze it, check the attributions, and make an informed decision. I don't take spoon fed information. That is how to avoid a bias: apply reason and due diligence.
For the record, the article on this issue on Snopes appears sound and reasoned, unlike the rambler here. It's sad that as soon as someone says "liberal bias" everyone is on board no matter how incorrect or damaging that may be. Are we so ready to burn some more witches?
