Fact-checking website <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/snopes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Snopes</a> has updated its assessment of the contents of a stolen diary that belonged to President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a>’s daughter, Ashley Biden, to say they have been verified.
An article published in early April explored the claim that Ashley Biden&#8217;s diary &#8220;describes actions taken toward her by her father when she was a child as &#8216;probably not appropriate.'&#8221;
Whereas the article <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240405205118/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">initially said</a> the claim had been &#8220;Unproven,&#8221; a <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revised version</a> published at the end of the month changed the rating to &#8220;True.&#8221;
A note affixed to the top of the article cites an April 8 letter to a New York judge requesting jail time for one of the two people <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-gets-sentenced-to-prison-for-selling-ashley-bidens-diary" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convicted of stealing</a> Ashley Biden&#8217;s diary in the run-up to the 2020 election.
&#8220;I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online,&#8221; Ashley Biden wrote in the letter, which The New York Times <a href="https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/654c5f7182bca1ee/6fe57478-full.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published online</a>.
Snopes said previous versions of the fact-check noted &#8220;strong evidence&#8221; that the diary existed but argued no source had authenticated the contents of the pages that were published online.
<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/217072/cotton-probes-for-doj-employees-spilling-beans-on-investigation-into-missing-ashley-biden-diary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alleged pages</a> from the first daughter&#8217;s diary, including one talking about being &#8220;hyper-sexualized&#8221; at a young age and &#8220;showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate),&#8221; were <a href="https://nationalfile.com/official-national-file-statement-regarding-fbi-interest-in-ashley-bidens-probably-not-appropriate-showers-diary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> by a website called National File.
The earlier iteration of the Snopes fact-check claimed &#8220;the authenticity of photographs purported to be from a diary is a separate question from the factual existence of a diary.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712242396228000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3WzjrNXCr1KblP2z8dS_jB">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
With the latest assessment, the update note concluded, &#8220;Ashley Biden&#8217;s letter to the court, in Snopes&#8217; view, provides that authentication.&#8221;
In her letter to the court, Ashley Biden said her journal was part of her efforts to heal after being the victim of a crime in her early 20s.
Ashley Biden claimed that she was targeted because her father had been running for president, and the publicity the diary had drawn led her to be &#8220;constantly re-traumatized by it.&#8221;
She also said: &#8220;Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love.&#8221;

Joe and Ashley Biden

Snopes Changes Fact-Check Rating On Contents Of Ashley Biden’s Diary From ‘Unproven’ To ‘True’

Snopes Changes Fact-Check Rating On Contents Of Ashley Biden's Diary From 'Unproven' To 'True'

Biden

Executive

Fact Check

Joe Biden

Politics

Project Veritas

Snopes

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates reportedly owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other individual, according to Left-wing fact-checking site Snopes.
Snopes last week <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-gates-own-farmland/">rated</a> a claim that Gates owns &#8220;the majority of U.S. farmland&#8221; as &#8220;false,&#8221; but admitted that the tech billionaire &#8220;does own a lot of farmland.&#8221;
&#8220;In fact, he <a href="https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly owns more farmland</a> than any other individual in America,&#8221; the fact-check said. &#8220;According to 2021 article from the Land Report, a magazine about land ownership, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland.&#8221;
&#8220;While this is certainly a lot of acreage, it represents less than 1% of all the farmland in the United States,&#8221; the report emphasized.
&#8220;According to a <a href="https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2022/04/fnlo0222.pdf">2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service</a>, there are 895,300,000 acres of farmland in the United States. Gates’ 242,000 acres amounts to about 0.03% of the total,&#8221; Snopes added.
The Land Report <a href="https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/">article</a> linked by Snopes emphasizes Gates&#8217; landholdings by naming his &#8220;alter ego&#8221; &#8220;Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America.&#8221;
&#8220;The Gateses’ largest single block of dirt was acquired in 2017: a group of farmland assets owned by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board,&#8221; the report said.
&#8220;Based in Toronto, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board began assembling an agricultural portfolio in 2013, when it acquired AgCoA, aka, Agricultural Company of America,&#8221; Land Report explained. &#8220;This private US farmland REIT was a joint venture between Duquesne Capital Management and Goldman Sachs that launched in 2007. Over the next five years, AgCoA acquired more than 100,000 acres in nine states. By the time it was sold to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in 2013, AgCoA ranked as one of the leading institutional owners of row crop farmland in the US.&#8221;
&#8220;Yet farmland assets aren’t the sole component of the Gateses’ landholdings,&#8221; the report detailed. &#8220;In 2017, Cascade Investment bought a &#8216;significant stake&#8217; in 24,800 acres of transitional land on the western edge of Phoenix, the most populous city in Arizona and the 10th largest metropolitan area in the country. &#8230; Cascade Investment doubled down on Phoenix transitional land two years later when it made a second major investment by acquiring more than 2,800 acres known as Spurlock Ranch in Buckeye for $25 million.&#8221;
Gates has recently become a prominent fixture in the media, mostly featured for his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-gates-too-late-to-vaccinate-70-of-the-worlds-population-for-covid-19-by-who-target-date">opinions</a> on pandemic-related activity, but also for his recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-gates-admits-he-caused-pain-to-wife-melinda-when-asked-if-he-cheated-on-her">divorce</a> from ex-wife Melinda Gates and his apparent friendship with late convicted sex offender <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/melinda-gates-bills-work-with-abhorrent-jeffrey-epstein-played-role-in-divorce">Jeffrey Epstein</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates-in-uncovered-text-messages-posts-side-by-side-photo-mocking-gates">Elon Musk Calls Out Bill Gates In Uncovered Text Messages, Posts Side-By-Side Photo Mocking Gates</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ex-wife-melinda-breaks-silence-on-bill-gates-affair-in-tell-all-interview">Ex-Wife Melinda Breaks Silence On Bill Gates’ Affair In Tell-All Interview</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-bill-gates-secretly-partnered-with-china-and-sold-out-the-american-people">How Bill Gates Secretly Partnered With China — And Sold Out The American People</a>

Key Speakers and Interviews at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum

Left-Wing ‘Fact Check’ Says Bill Gates ‘Reportedly’ Owns More Farmland In U.S. Than Any Other Individual

Bill Gates Owns More Farmland In The U.S. Than Any Other Individual, Snopes Reports 

Bill Gates

Farming

Readers Pass

Earlier this week, it was reported that President Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services was planning to implement a $30 million grant program which would include handing out &#8220;safe smoking kits&#8221; to drug addicts. According to a report from The Washington Free Beacon, a spokesman for the agency confirmed that these kits would include pipes for the use of &#8220;crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and &#8216;any illicit substance.'&#8221;
“Applicants for the grants are prioritized if they treat a majority of ‘underserved communities,’ including African Americans and ‘LGBTQ+ persons,’ as established under President Joe Biden’s executive order on ‘advancing racial equity,’” <a href="https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-fund-crack-pipe-distribution-to-advance-racial-equity/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> reported.
Despite the breadth of the reporting, and the clarity of the language, fact-checking organization Snopes mobilized to argue that this was not the case &#8230; mostly.
“<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-crack-pipes-racial-equity/">Did Biden Admin ‘Fund Crack Pipes’ To ‘Advance Racial Equity’?</a>” Snopes’ Dan MacGuill asked, arguing that “[n]ews reports in February 2022 grossly misrepresented the facts about a federal harm reduction program.”
The claim “debunked” by Snopes was that, “In early 2022, the Biden administration endeavored to advance racial equity by distributing crack pipes to drug users.”
Snopes deemed this claim to be “Mostly False,” a rating which <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rating/mostly-false/">indicates</a> “that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate.”
The “Mostly False” fact-check began by listing &#8220;What&#8217;s True&#8221;:
<blockquote>In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. </blockquote>
Then, under “What’s False,” Snopes added:
<blockquote>This was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one, despite being the primary focus of outraged news reports. The purpose of the program was to reduce harm and the risk of infection among drug users, not to advance racial equity, although that was a secondary consideration.</blockquote>
As examples of “breathless” reporting on the subject from “right-leaning outlets,” Snopes listed headlines like “Biden administration funding crack pipe distribution, saying it’s needed for racial equity,” from JustTheNews.com, and “Biden Admin Spending $30M To Give Crack Pipes, Drug Kits To Addicts For ‘Advancing Racial Equity,’” from ChicksOnTheRight.com, adding that outlets like The Blaze wrote:
<blockquote>The Biden administration will soon fund the distribution of crack pipes to drug addicts in underserved communities for the purpose of “advancing racial equity,” the Washington Free Beacon reported.</blockquote>
By their own metrics, in order to reach a conclusion of &#8220;Mostly False,&#8221; Snopes had to prove that the &#8220;primary elements&#8221; of the claim “In early 2022, the Biden administration endeavored to advance racial equity by distributing crack pipes to drug users&#8221; are &#8220;demonstrably false.&#8221; However, every single element of this claim is true:
<blockquote>“In early 2022…”
The <a href="https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf">program</a>, “Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration FY 2022 Harm Reduction Program Grant” had an application deadline of February 7, 2022.
“&#8230;the Biden administration endeavored to advance racial equity…”
The program document states, “The priority populations for this program are underserved communities that are greatly impacted by SUD [substance use disorders].” The document then directly references the definition of “underserved communities” laid out in section 2 of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/">Executive Order 13985</a>, which reads:
It is … the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. 
“&#8230;by distributing crack pipes to drug users.”
The Washington Free Beacon confirmed with a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services that “smoking kits/supplies” will include pipes for drug users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and &#8220;any illicit substance.&#8221;</blockquote>
The entire basis for the “Mostly False” rating hinges on the notion that the “What’s False” category outweighs the “What’s True” category. However, what Snopes lists as “false” has nothing to do with fact or fiction. Instead, it has everything to do with a retroactive layer of “context.”
The fact that crack pipe distribution was “just one of around 20 components of the grant program” or that crack pipe distribution is “far from” the program’s “most prominent or important” feature is irrelevant when it comes to judging the original claim.
Moreover, the argument that “The purpose of the program was to reduce harm and the risk of infection among drug users, not to advance racial equity, although that was a secondary consideration” admits that advancing racial equity was — at least in part — a motivating factor.
To argue that the existence of other motivating factors (even more important ones) counteracts the existence of one motivating factor is to bend reality. 
For example, let us say that Alice left her home to both visit her friend, Bob, and purchase an ice cream. It is therefore correct to say that Alice left her home to visit her friend, Bob, and that she left her home to purchase an ice cream. Based on Snopes’ logic, though, these statements in isolation are “Mostly False” unless we include the every element of her decision to leave.
Later on Wednesday, Snopes updated the rating of the post to &#8220;Outdated,&#8221; writing:
<div class="wp-block-snopes-fact-check-rating card mb-3" data-component="claim-rating">
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media key-context">
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">
<blockquote>&#8220;After a wave of grossly misleading news coverage in February 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stipulated that federal funding would not be used to include pipes in safe smoking kits, as part of a substance abuse harm reduction grant program. This newly-stipulated detail was not originally available, meaning the assertions made in a first wave of coverage had become outdated.&#8221;</blockquote>
This appeared to refer to a February 9 press release from Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Dr. Rahul Gupta, which stated:
<div class="field field--name-field-paragraph-body field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field--items">
<div>
<div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default">
<div class="field field--name-field-uswds-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item">
<blockquote>“HHS and ONDCP are focused on using our resources smartly to reduce harm and save lives. Accordingly, no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits. The goal of harm reduction is to save lives. The Administration is focused on a comprehensive strategy to stop the spread of drugs and curb addiction, including prioritizing the use of proven harm reduction strategies like providing naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and clean syringes, as well as taking decisive actions to go after violent criminals who are trafficking illicit drugs like fentanyl across our borders and into our communities. We will continue working to address the addiction and overdose epidemic and ensure that our resources are used in the smartest and most efficient manner.”</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Regardless of the updated rating, however, Snopes&#8216; &#8220;Mostly False&#8221; logic is part of a pattern. This is not the first time that a fact-checking organization has applied a healthy dose of subjectivity to achieve a desired result. Indeed, this isn’t even the first time that Snopes has applied this strategy.
For example, in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/snopes-posts-bogus-pro-aoc-fact-check-ends-up-exposing-its-left-wing-bias">February 2021</a>, Snopes published a <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-capitol-attack/">report</a> titled “Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?” The fact-check investigated the claim:
<blockquote>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she “wasn’t even in the Capitol building” when the rioting occurred.</blockquote>
This claim — Ocasio-Cortez’s alleged “exaggeration” of the danger based on her distance from the rioting — was also given the hallowed “Mostly False” rating, with the following “true” and “false” components:
<blockquote>What’s True: Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located.
What’s False: When the attack on the Capitol began, Ocasio-Cortez was in her congressional office, which is located in a network of office buildings immediately surrounding the Capitol, and her office building was one of the two buildings that were evacuated.</blockquote>
And just like Snopes’ crack pipe fact-check, the accuracy of the central claim — in this case, that Ocasio-Cortez “wasn’t even in the Capitol building” — was irrelevant.
To turn up into down, day into night, and right into wrong, all it takes is a healthy dose of carefully selected “context.”
This article has been revised to clarify that the initiative lists &#8220;safe smoking kits&#8221; in its list of items rather than specifying &#8220;crack pipes,&#8221; and to include Snopes&#8217; updated rating based on a statement from HHS.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at<a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth"> @ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Crack Cocain

‘Mostly False’ Free Crack Pipes: How ‘Fact-Checkers’ Debunked Reality … Again

Crack

The purported fact-checking website Snopes attempted to debunk reporting this week that said the Biden administration would be funding programs that distribute crack pipes.
Though the fact check is laced with a snide tone, it ultimately confirms reporting about the Biden administration’s plan to distribute crack pipes to drug addicts. Snopes begins by flipping the claim reported by numerous outlets: “In early 2022, the Biden administration endeavored to advance racial equity by distributing crack pipes to drug users.”
Following multiple reports on the grant and amid widespread backlash, including from members of Congress, Health and Human Services (HHS) addressed the controversy on Wednesday. HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) director Rahul Gupta said in a <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/02/09/statement-hhs-secretary-xavier-becerra-and-ondcp-director-rahul-gupta.html">press release</a> that “no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits.”
“HHS and ONDCP are focused on using our resources smartly to reduce harm and save lives. Accordingly, no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits,” the statement reads.
“The goal of harm reduction is to save lives,” it continues. “The Administration is focused on a comprehensive strategy to stop the spread of drugs and curb addiction, including prioritizing the use of proven harm reduction strategies like providing naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and clean syringes, as well as taking decisive actions to go after violent criminals who are trafficking illicit drugs like fentanyl across our borders and into our communities. We will continue working to address the addiction and overdose epidemic and ensure that our resources are used in the smartest and most efficient manner.”
Following strong backlash online over its rating of the claims, Snopes changed its &#8220;Mostly False&#8221; rating to &#8220;outdated.&#8221;
It now claims:
<blockquote>After a wave of grossly misleading news coverage in February 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stipulated that federal funding would not be used to include pipes in safe smoking kits, as part of a substance abuse harm reduction grant program. This newly-stipulated detail was not originally available, meaning the assertions made in a first wave of coverage had become outdated.</blockquote>
Snopes’ summary of its rating shows that everything about the claim is accurate, but Snopes still rates it as “Mostly False”:
What&#8217;s True
In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. However&#8230;
What&#8217;s False
This was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one, despite being the primary focus of outraged news reports. The purpose of the program was to reduce harm and the risk of infection among drug users, not to advance racial equity, although that was a secondary consideration.
According to Snopes, the grant program exists and is at least in part intended to “advance racial equity,” so the “Mostly False” rating seems harsh.
Snopes’ longer explanation further confirms reporting from right-leaning outlets, though the fact-checking website claims the posts lack context and are therefore misleading. Context, however, doesn’t make it any less true that the grant program would provide crack pipes to drug users and prioritize “underserved communities.” Snopes quotes from the Health and Human Services document discussing racial equity:
What the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf">HHS document</a> did say about racial equity was as follows. Every applicant for the harm reduction grant is required to provide a two-page “behavioral disparity impact statement,” which roughly speaking, sets out in advance, details about the population which the grant applicant serves, including individuals from historically underserved communities including “racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minority groups.” 
The document further states that: “The priority populations for this program are underserved communities that are greatly impacted by SUD [substance use disorders]” and clarifies that “underserved communities” is as defined in <a href="https://archive.is/yMiEU">Executive Order 13985</a> — Biden’s first executive order, signed on Jan. 20, 2021.
That Executive Order said:
It is…the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. 
The Washington Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-fund-crack-pipe-distribution-to-advance-racial-equity/">confirmed</a> with an HHS spokesman before publication that the Biden administration would be providing crack pipes.
“A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and ‘any illicit substance,&#8217;” the outlet reported.
Following multiple reports on the grant and amid widespread backlash, including from members of Congress, Health and Human Services (HHS) addressed the controversy on Wednesday. HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) director Rahul Gupta said in a <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/02/09/statement-hhs-secretary-xavier-becerra-and-ondcp-director-rahul-gupta.html">press release</a> that “no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits.”
“HHS and ONDCP are focused on using our resources smartly to reduce harm and save lives. Accordingly, no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits,” the statement reads.
“The goal of harm reduction is to save lives,” it continues. “The Administration is focused on a comprehensive strategy to stop the spread of drugs and curb addiction, including prioritizing the use of proven harm reduction strategies like providing naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and clean syringes, as well as taking decisive actions to go after violent criminals who are trafficking illicit drugs like fentanyl across our borders and into our communities. We will continue working to address the addiction and overdose epidemic and ensure that our resources are used in the smartest and most efficient manner.”
This story has been updated to note that Snopes changed its rating from &#8220;mostly false&#8221; to &#8220;outdated&#8221; and to include a new statement from HHS and ONDCP.

Men doing drugs.

Snopes Determines Everything Correct About Biden Admin Distributing Crack Pipes, Still Labels It ‘Mostly False’

Drugs

Media Bias

The CEO and co-founder of Snopes, an outlet that <a href="https://www.snopes.com/about/">purports</a> to publish “original, investigative reporting” and fact checks, admitted that he plagiarized dozens of articles.
According to an investigation by <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson">BuzzFeed</a>, between 2015 and 2019, the outlet’s co-founder David Mikkelson wrote and published dozens of articles containing plagiarized content from major news outlets, including The Guardian and the Los Angeles Times. Inquiries from BuzzFeed prompted an internal review, which confirmed that Mikkelson had published 54 articles with plagiarized material.
“The articles include such topics as same-sex marriage licenses and the death of musician David Bowie,” BuzzFeed reports.
Snopes executives issued a statement condemning Mikkelson for his lapse in judgment.
“Plagiarism undermines our mission and values, full stop,” the statement reads. “It has no place in any context within this organization. We invite readers to let us know here if they find any other examples of plagiarized content so that we can apply the same treatment as above.”
Mikkelson’s publishing rights have since been revoked, though he still maintains 50 percent of the company&#8217;s stock and remains a top executive.
In a statement, Mikkelson admitted to plagiarism and handed the reigns of publication duties to Snopes Vice President of Editorial and Managing Editor Doreen Marchionni.
“The results of our internal audit confirmed that I engaged in multiple serious copyright violations of content that Snopes didn’t have rights to use,” Mikkelson said. “There is no excuse for my serious lapses in judgment. I am sorry. I have given full authority to our managing editor, Doreen Marchionni, to take any measures needed to address these issues.”
The BuzzFeed investigation uncovered that the plagiarized articles were published under three separate bylines. The first was Mikkelson’s real name, the second was “Snopes Staff,” and the third was a pseudonym byline “Jeff Zarronandia.”
According to former Managing Editor Brooke Binkowski, Mikkelson used the pseudonym “to write about topics he knew would get him hate mail under that assumed name.” “Plus it made it appear he had more staff than he had,” Binkowski said.
Snopes is known for issuing fact-checks on opinion pieces, analysis articles, and satire. The site appears to have an overt bias against conservatives and has provided cover for Democrats on multiple occasions.
In March, Snopes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/snopes-offers-bizarre-biden-cover-in-fact-check-on-potus-forgetting-defense-secretarys-name">assigned</a> a “Mixed” true-and-false rating to the claim that President Biden forgot the name of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during a speech. Snopes conceded that the president was “fumbling his words and apparently [blanked] on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s name at one point in the speech.”
However, the outlet added that the claim is “mixed” because it’s possible that Biden “got stuck doing an extended ‘folksy’ ad-lib after initially tripping over his words.”
Snopes similarly provided cover for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) when she claimed that she feared for her life on January 6 during the Capitol riot. The outlet provided a “mostly false” rating for the statement that “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she ‘wasn’t even in the Capitol building’ when the rioting occurred.”
In the same fact check, Snopes admits that “Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located.” The organization still opted to provide cover for AOC’s statements.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/snopes-posts-bogus-pro-aoc-fact-check-ends-up-exposing-its-left-wing-bias">Snopes Posts Bogus Pro-AOC ‘Fact Check,’ Ends Up Exposing Its Left-Wing Bias</a>

Fact or Fake

‘Fact-Checking’ Snopes CEO Admitted To Publishing Dozens Of Articles Containing Plagiarized Content

The Babylon Bee has demanded that The New York Time retract an article which referenced the conservative satirical site in the context of Facebook’s battle with so-called far-Right misinformation.
“Yesterday our counsel sent a letter to [The New York Times] demanding a retraction. We took this action because their article was — and remains — defamatory,” wrote Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Yesterday our counsel sent a letter to <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> demanding a retraction. We took this action because their article was—and remains—defamatory.
&mdash; Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1400478453615448067?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Dillon then referenced his response to the original article, from March 2021, writing, “In an article about Facebook&#8217;s difficulty in dealing with satire, the New York Times points to The Babylon Bee as an example of a ‘far-right misinformation site’ that &#8216;sometimes trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire.'&#8221;
 The original Times article, which has since been revised, stated: 
<div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<blockquote>
But satire kept popping up as a blind spot. In 2019 and 2020, Facebook often dealt with far-right misinformation sites that used “satire” claims to protect their presence on the platform, Mr. Brooking said. For example, The Babylon Bee, a right-leaning site, sometimes trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire.
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
Dillon then explained that The New York Times published an update, which replaced the &#8220;example&#8221; sentence in the paragraph with an editor&#8217;s note that read: “[Updated March 22, 2021: The Babylon Bee, a right-leaning satirical site, has feuded with Facebook and the fact-checking site Snopes over whether the site published misinformation or satire.]”
However, Dillon argued that the update “was no better than the original,” sharing Snopes’ retraction of any insinuation of “deceptive intent.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The update was no better than the original. We have not, in fact, feuded with Snopes as to whether we publish satire or misinformation. Snopes retracted that insinuation with an editors&#39; note saying it was never their intent to call our motives into question. <a href="https://t.co/3s5lw9HyCw">pic.twitter.com/3s5lw9HyCw</a>
&mdash; Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1400478463870578690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“It’s therefore misleading and malicious to characterize that incident as a feud, as if Snopes ever openly stood by the claim that we are misinformation and not satire,” continued Dillon. “We cannot stand idly by as they act with malice to misrepresent us in ways that jeopardize our business.”
The New York Times article in question was published on March 19, 2021. Written by Mike Isaac, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/technology/political-cartoonists-facebook-satire-irony.html">piece</a> is titled, “For Political Cartoonists, the Irony Was That Facebook Didn’t Recognize Irony.” While discussing Babylon Bee, two links were provided. The first was to a Snopes <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/">fact-check</a>, which includes the following Editors’ note:
<blockquote>Some readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee in its original satirical piece about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, and that was not the editors’ aim. To address any confusion, we have revised some of the wording mostly for tone and clarity. We are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire. </blockquote>
The second link referenced an <a href="https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-is-real/">article</a> from The Conversation posted on Snopes titled, “Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real.” While the article was doubtlessly critical, the focus was a supposed inability — among Republicans in particular — to understand satire. The article acknowledges throughout — despite its critical tone — that Babylon Bee is satirical, and even linked to the earlier Snopes fact-check.
Responding in a <a href="https://notthebee.com/article/the-new-york-times-updated-their-babylon-bee-smear-aaand-its-still-garbage">Not The Bee</a> piece titled “The New York Times updated their Babylon Bee smear aaaand it’s still hot garbage,” Adam Ford shared a tweet, which read, “The update is still damning of us, especially given its context in the paragraph and article at large, and still precisely worded to cast doubt on the Bee&#8217;s legitimacy as a satire outlet. What a joke.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The update is still damning of us, especially given its context in the paragraph and article at large, and still precisely worded to cast doubt on the Bee&#39;s legitimacy as a satire outlet. What a joke.<a href="https://t.co/KkeCj09ej8">https://t.co/KkeCj09ej8</a> <a href="https://t.co/UNT5ok1hmQ">pic.twitter.com/UNT5ok1hmQ</a>
&mdash; Adam Ford (@Adam4d) <a href="https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1374131696539463690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 22, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

New York Times

Babylon Bee Slams New York Times For ‘Defamatory’ Article, Demands Retraction Over ‘Misinformation’ Reference

Babylon Bee

Satire

Snopes on Tuesday assigned a &#8220;Mixed&#8221; true-and-false rating to the claim that President Joe Biden forgot the name of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at one point during a speech he gave on International Women&#8217;s Day.
Snopes concedes that Biden, in the video, is &#8220;fumbling his words and apparently blanking on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin&#8217;s name at one point in the speech.&#8221;
However, the left-wing fact-checking site bizarrely adds that the claim is not fully true since it&#8217;s possible that Biden didn&#8217;t really blank on the name, but, instead, &#8220;got stuck doing an extended &#8216;folksy&#8217; ad-lib after initially tripping over his words.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s the &#8220;<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-forgot-defense-secretary/">Mixture</a>&#8221; conclusion from Snopes:
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-true">
<blockquote>
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">
What&#8217;s True
A video shows Biden fumbling his words and apparently blanking on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin&#8217;s name at one point in the speech, although he had mentioned Austin&#8217;s name a few minutes earlier without issue.
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-undetermined">
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">
<blockquote>What&#8217;s Undetermined
It&#8217;s unclear whether Biden literally &#8220;forgot&#8221; his defense secretary&#8217;s name at that moment, or whether, for example, he got stuck doing an extended &#8220;folksy&#8221; ad lib after initially tripping over his words.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
“I want to thank Sec- — the former general — I keep calling him ‘General.’ My — the guy who runs that outfit over there,&#8221; Biden says in the video clip, per White House transcript. &#8220;I want to make sure we thank the Secretary for all he’s done to try to implement what we’ve just talked about, and for recommending these two women for promotion.”
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-undetermined">
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Whoops: Biden forgets the name of the Pentagon, as well as the name of his secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin <a href="https://t.co/ZtcgHLBIAO">pic.twitter.com/ZtcgHLBIAO</a>
&mdash; Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1369044328807596036?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Data from a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday shows that Americans are concerned about Biden’s lack of transparency, avoiding a solo press conference since taking office.
“More than six weeks since his inauguration, President Biden still hasn’t held his first White House press conference, and half of voters are worried about his ability to do the job,” Rasmussen Reports <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/most_voters_concerned_president_biden_hasn_t_held_white_house_press_conference_yet">found</a>.
The survey found that 52% of Americans were concerned about Biden’s lack of access to the press, with 37% percent identifying as “very concerned”:
<blockquote>A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are concerned that Biden has not held a press conference, including 37% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-four percent (24%) say they’re Not Very Concerned and 22% are Not At All Concerned.</blockquote>
Notably, Biden’s lack of transparency has even been highlighted by left-wing politicos, like CNN’s media critic Brian Stelter.
“There are many ways to measure an American president’s accessibility. One way is by counting press conferences. Right now, by that count, President Biden looks invisible,” he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-stream-cuts-after-biden-asks-to-take-questions-video-goes-viral">wrote</a> in his newsletter.
“In my view, reporters are right to be pushing for more Q&amp;A access, and they shouldn’t let up the pressure,” added Stelter. “Biden should use the press conference setting to tell the public about what he’s doing…”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-americans-worried-about-bidens-ability-to-do-the-job">POLL: Americans ‘Worried’ About Biden’s ‘Ability To Do The Job’</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-stream-cuts-after-biden-asks-to-take-questions-video-goes-viral">White House Stream Cuts After Biden Asks To Take Questions, Video Goes Viral</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>

President Biden Makes Small Business Announcement From White House

Snopes Offers Bizarre Biden Cover In ‘Fact-Check’ On POTUS Forgetting Defense Secretary’s Name

Fact-checking site Snopes published a supposed <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-capitol-attack/">report</a> on Feb. 3 titled “Did AOC Exaggerate the Danger She Was in During Capitol Riot?” This title was immediately followed by the heading “AOC was targeted with another round of bad-faith smears after giving an emotional, firsthand account of her experiences during the Capitol riot,” clearly indicating the tone and premise of the &#8220;fact check,&#8221; which quickly demonstrates its overt left-wing bias.
Bethania Palma of Snopes begins by presenting the claim to be investigated: 
<blockquote>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she &#8220;wasn’t even in the Capitol building&#8221; when the rioting occurred.</blockquote>
This claim — Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s alleged “exaggeration” of the danger based on her distance from the rioting — Palma concluded, deserves a “Mostly False” rating. Palma sums up her conclusions about &#8220;what&#8217;s true&#8221; and &#8220;what&#8217;s false&#8221; (formatting adjusted):
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-true">
<blockquote>
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">What&#8217;s True: Ocasio-Cortez wasn&#8217;t in the main Capitol building where the House and Senate Chambers are located.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-false">
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">What&#8217;s False: When the attack on the Capitol began, Ocasio-Cortez was in her congressional office, which is located in a network of office buildings immediately surrounding the Capitol, and her office building was one of the two buildings that were evacuated.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="card-body pt-0">
<div class="media whats-false">
<div class="media-body d-flex flex-column">
The most glaring problem with Palma&#8217;s conclusion that this is a &#8220;Mostly False&#8221; claim is that the central claim — that Ocasio-Cortez &#8220;wasn&#8217;t even in the Capitol building&#8221; — is true, as Palma admits herself in her &#8220;What&#8217;s True&#8221; section. Ocasio-Cortez was not in fact in the Capitol building. Instead, she was in her congressional office in the Cannon House Office Building, a separate building about a quarter of a mile away and connected to the Capitol only by an underground tunnel.  
The Cannon House Office Building was evacuated by police but it was not breached by rioters, as detailed by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), whose office is close to Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s. “My office is 2 doors down,” said Mace in response to a since-<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-aoc-was-not-inside-capitol-building-during-breach-on-jan-6">corrected</a> Newsweek report that initially falsely reported that &#8220;Ocasio-Cortez said that rioters actually entered her office&#8221; (a claim she did not make). “Insurrectionists never stormed our hallway,&#8221; Mace underscored.
</div>
</div>
</div>
As its rationale for calling the claim “Mostly False,” Snopes points to the irrelevant fact that her nearby building was evacuated by police. In other words, the &#8220;exaggeration&#8221; element of the claim was left unanswered, and the location element of the claim was manipulated in order to achieve the &#8220;Mostly False&#8221; rating.
Throughout the piece, Palma repeatedly exposes her own bias in favor of Ocasio-Cortez and against her critics on the right. After presenting a straightforward account of the events — Ocasio-Cortez using Instagram Live to “relay her personal account of how the events of that day had traumatized her,” and the various themes of assault, survival and trauma raised by the Congresswoman — Palma suddenly invokes &#8220;the right-wing disinformation machine&#8221;:
<blockquote>It took less than 48 hours for the right-wing disinformation machine to contrive a way to minimize what Ocasio-Cortez said she had experienced.</blockquote>
Palma then manipulates the claim in question to slander those who pointed out counter-evidence that she was not actually in the Capitol building, as the &#8220;fact-checker&#8221; has already admitted was true.
“In a circus of cyberbullying that began on Feb. 3, 2021, conservative news outlets and social media conspiracy trolls latched on to the misleading claim that Ocasio-Cortez ‘wasn’t in the Capitol building’ and therefore was not in harm’s way, as she had described in the Instagram video,” Palma continued.
“Right-wing disinformation machine.” “Contrive a way to minimize.” “Circus of cyberbullying.” “Latched on to the misleading claim.” Each of these twists the supposedly objective investigation in the favor of Ocastio-Cortez, while failing to provide any evidence to support such strong accusations or to remain focused on proving or disproving the supposed central claim of the article.
Palma also made the unsubstantiated and false assumption that pushing back on Ocasio-Cortez’s account — specifically regarding the danger she was in — was unquestionably invalid by nature of the fact that Ocasio-Cortez was not in the building under direct attack. This disregards the obvious point that proximity to danger is an appropriate metric to consider when measuring imminent threats.
Along with RedState, Snopes chose to take aim at The Daily Wire, which chronicled the controversy in a Feb. 3 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-aoc-was-not-inside-capitol-building-during-breach-on-jan-6">report</a> originally titled “Report: AOC Was Not Inside Capitol Building During Breach On Jan. 6” (later updated to include Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s response to RedState: “Report: AOC Was Not Inside Capitol Building During Breach; AOC Responds: Report ‘Manipulative.’”)
The first part of Daily Wire&#8217;s supposedly problematic title is almost word-for-word Snopes&#8217; own conclusion that &#8220;Ocasio-Cortez wasn&#8217;t in the main Capitol building.&#8221;
The Daily Wire’s report, mischaracterized by Snopes as “right-wing disinformation” and part of a “circus of cyberbullying,” was devoid of any accusation or subjective assertion. Instead, the piece simply reported that Republican Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) had criticized the media for fanning “fictitious news flames,” referenced a RedState report which accurately — by Snopes&#8217; own admission — described the location of Ocasio-Cortez, and that Rep. Mace had claimed that there were never any rioters in their immediate proximity.
The Daily Wire report also discussed Newsweek’s coverage of Ocasio-Cortez’s recollection of events, with Rep. Mace criticizing Newsweek — not Ocasio-Cortez — for misleading language. Finally, the updated report concluded by directly quoting Ocasio-Cortez’s response to such accusations, which the Congresswoman described as “the latest manipulative take on the right” and part of a “discrediting campaign.”
The majority of the remainder of Palma&#8217;s article is dedicated to mimicking — without question or journalistic interest — Ocasio-Cortez’s subjective interpretation of every negative reaction to both her account and the media’s portrayal of her account and the related events.
“Ocasio-Cortez was attacked on social media with bad-faith attempts to discredit her story by people who falsely claimed she exaggerated the danger she was in because she wasn’t actually inside the main Capitol building where the House and Senate chambers are located,&#8221; writes Palma. 
Palma fails to justify why such attempts were “bad-faith,” uses the word “discredit” — mirroring Ocasio-Cortez’s own language — and then states that it was false to argue that she “exaggerated the danger she was in,” again without any evidence.
“The online attacks on Ocasio-Cortez downplayed, from a safe distance, not only the sense of fear she felt in the moment during the attack on the Capitol, but also the imminent physical danger that she and others in and around the Capitol really were in during the attack,” Palma continued.
“Attacks.” “Downplayed.” “From a safe distance.” Palma — a supposedly objective fact-checker — presumes that any criticism is simply an “online attack.” In addition, Palma disregards the personal account of another Congresswoman at the scene in her bid to play a subtle logical trick. 
The original claim focused on whether Ocasio-Cortez “exaggerated the danger she was in.” The feeling of danger is subjective and abstract, while the reality of danger is objective and concrete. Palma, however, intentionally blurred feeling and reality to reach the desired conclusion, referencing the irrelevant “sense of fear” felt in the moment with the unsubstantiated “imminent physical danger” Ocasio-Cortez and others were in, having previously referenced that “the office buildings and the main Capitol building are interconnected by a series of tunnels known as the Capitol Subway System,” and that Ocasio-Cortez’s building — Cannon House — was one of the buildings evacuated.
Snopes attempts to debunk the “exaggeration of danger” claim by referencing Ocasio-Cortez’s “sense of fear” and that her building was connected to the Capitol building, which was under attack. While this makes it possible that insurrectionists could have accessed her building, it makes the false implication that they did access her building. Whether or not rioters had accessed her building is the sole factor which matters when measuring the physical danger Ocasio-Cortez was in. Since rioters had not accessed her building, she was under no imminent physical threat.
Revisiting the original claim, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exaggerated the danger she was in during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in that she ‘wasn’t even in the Capitol building’ when the rioting occurred,” there are only two appropriate ratings which any honest journalist could reach. First, that this claim is true. Second, that this claim is mostly true, with the “exaggeration” element impossible to judge given its emotional and subjective definition. To conclude this claim is &#8220;Mostly False&#8221; is an act of intellectual dishonesty.
Unfortunately, such a demonstration of disreputable subjectivity with a shameless level of bias is not new in the world of fact-checking. Snopes, like many of their competitors, are routinely referenced by mainstream media outlets as objective sources of truth. &#8220;Fact-checks&#8221; like this debunk the obviously incorrect notion that organizations like Snopes are in any way objective. Palma wrote this article to manipulate the evidence available to her to achieve a politically-advantageous conclusion, all while slandering “right-wing” voices and outlets as guilty of spreading disinformation, even when merely reporting on the same evidence to which she had access.
What Snopes has just demonstrated once again is that the self-styled &#8220;fact-checkers&#8221; are in desperate need of some heavy fact-checking. Given that a search for “left-wing disinformation” on their website returns no results, but “right-wing disinformation” has been used twice this year alone, it seems that fact-checking Snopes for objectivity might not be necessary.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Snopes Posts Bogus Pro-AOC ‘Fact Check,’ Ends Up Exposing Its Left-Wing Bias

Capitol Riot

Hospitals get paid more money if a patient is coded for the novel coronavirus, even if they haven&#8217;t been tested in some states, multiple fact-checking sites have confirmed, including USA Today, Politifact, and Snopes. Hospitals get a 20% add-on for COVID-19-coded patients and roughly three times as much if such patients are placed on a ventilator.
In the beginning of April, physician and State Sen. Scott Jensen (R-MN) notified the public of the policy and later emphasized on Fox News&#8217; &#8220;<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/physician-blasts-cdc-coronavirus-death-count-guidelines">The Ingraham Angle</a>&#8221; that &#8220;anytime health care intersects with dollars, it gets awkward.&#8221;
&#8220;Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000,&#8221; Jensen <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/physician-blasts-cdc-coronavirus-death-count-guidelines">said</a> on the Fox program. &#8220;If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [have] impact on what we do.&#8221;
&#8220;Some physicians really have a bent towards public health and they will put down influenza or whatever because that’s their preference,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I try to stay very specific, very precise. If I know I’ve got pneumonia, that’s what’s going on the death certificate. I’m not going to add stuff just because it’s convenient.&#8221;
On Facebook, the Republican reiterated, &#8220;How can anyone not believe that increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths may create an avenue for states to receive a larger portion of federal dollars. Already some states are complaining that they are not getting enough of the CARES Act dollars because they are having significantly more proportional COVID-19 deaths.&#8221;
&#8220;Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it&#8217;s a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they&#8217;re Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000,&#8221; he added on April 19. &#8220;But if it&#8217;s COVID-19 pneumonia, then it&#8217;s $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000.&#8221;
Speaking to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/">USA Today</a>, Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said via email on April 21, &#8220;What Scott Jensen said sounds right to me.&#8221;
&#8220;We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE,&#8221; <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/">USA Today</a> declared in a Friday fact-check.
&#8220;Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it&#8217;s considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases,&#8221; the fact-checker explains.
&#8220;This higher allocation of funds has been made possible under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act through a Medicare 20% add-on to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients, as verified by USA TODAY through the <a class="gnt_ar_b_a" href="https://www.aha.org/special-bulletin/2020-03-26-senate-passes-coronavirus-aid-relief-and-economic-security-cares-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-t-l="|inline|intext|n/a">American Hospital Association Special Bulletin</a> on the topic,&#8221; the outlet added.
<a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-posts/Fact-check-Hospitals-COVID-19-payments/">Politifact</a> conceded, &#8220;Medicare is paying a 20% add-on to its regular hospital payments for the treatment of COVID-19 victims. That’s a result of a federal stimulus law.&#8221;
And, as noted by <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/medicare-hospitals-covid-patients/">Snopes</a>, the best estimates for pay-outs to hospitals for uninsured patients match Sen. Jensen&#8217;s $13,000 and $39,000 figures.
&#8220;For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297,&#8221; said healthcare nonprofit <a href="https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/estimated-cost-of-treating-the-uninsured-hospitalized-with-covid-19/">Kaiser Family Foundation</a>. &#8220;For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218.&#8221;
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">subscriber</a>.

Empty Hospital bed

Yes, Hospitals Get Paid More For Coronavirus-Coded Patients, Even If They Haven’t Been Tested

COVID

PolitiFact

USA Today

After the media tried blaming Trump for two people drinking fish tank cleaner, the media then suggested that perhaps the president&#8217;s enthusiasm for the drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential panacea against COVID-19 was financially motivated in some way.
On Monday, The New York Times published an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-malaria-drug.html">embarrassing report</a> about the supposed financial gains the president could make off of hydroxychloroquine based on a minimal investment in one pharmaceutical company that produces the drug, over which he has no control.
&#8220;If hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president,&#8221; said the report. &#8220;Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.&#8221;
Though other left-wing outlets, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/4/7/21211872/trump-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-covid19-drugs-sanofi-owns">such as Vox</a>, were more reserved in their reactions to the report, that did not mean that various media pundits and Twitter trolls weren’t going to roll with the idea that President Trump has been promoting a drug against the advice of medical experts just so he can make a cheap buck.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: President Trump has a financial interest in the maker of hydroxychloroquine.
In other words, he has been telling Americans to risk their lives an take this drug in order for him to profit.
No, I’m not f—king joking!
&mdash; Convicted Felon Trump (@ConvictDTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/ConvictDTrump/status/1247474942482006023?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;If hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president. Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/JSmuvM78aC">https://t.co/JSmuvM78aC</a>
&mdash; Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1247347152445005824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Thankfully, the predominantly left-wing <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-profit-hydroxychloroquine/">Snopes has stepped in</a> to clear the air a bit by rating this claim &#8220;Mostly False,&#8221; mainly due to the fact that hydroxychloroquine is a fairly standard drug that various pharmaceutical companies can produce, thereby curtailing its supposed high-profit margins.
From the report:
<blockquote>
What&#8217;s True
<div class="media whats-true">
<div class="media-body">
U.S. President Donald Trump earns some income from three family trusts that are administered independently by J.P. Morgan, an investment bank and wealth-management firm. These trusts are in part invested in mutual funds that themselves are partially invested in companies that produce hydroxychloroquine.
What&#8217;s False
Trump’s financial stake in these companies is virtually negligible – contained indirectly via mutual funds – and administered through three family trusts he does not control. As a generic drug, hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide any one company with significant profits compared to other proprietary drugs.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="media whats-false">
<div class="media-body">
Snopes also expressed puzzlement that the New York Times focused so heavily on President Trump&#8217;s small investment in Sanofi – which equals just $2,490 in shares – when he also has limited investments in other pharmaceutical companies that could produce hydroxychloroquine.
&#8220;Trump is similarly invested in the pharmaceutical company Novartis via those same funds,&#8221; said Snopes. &#8220;Novartis manufactures hydroxychloroquine through their generics division <a href="https://www.novartis.com/news/novartis-announces-first-european-donation-hydroxychloroquine-switzerland" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sandoz</a>. Further, Trump – again via these same funds – is invested in several other pharmaceutical companies, too, and each of them could conceivably manufacture the drug as well.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s investments in these companies are important to note because it only serves to highlight the fact that the drug is actually not nearly as profitable as some might believe.
&#8220;As a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/generic-drugs/generic-drug-facts" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">generic drug</a>, any qualified company can be approved by the FDA to produce hydroxychloroquine – no single entity, be it Sanofi or Novartis or any other company, has exclusive financial rights to the drug,&#8221; continued Snopes. &#8220;This limits companies’ abilities to raise its price and means several companies are currently able to produce it. It also means no guarantee exists that any specific company, regardless of Trump’s investment or lack thereof, would necessarily become the major supplier of the drug in the United States.&#8221;
</div>
</div>

India Partially Lifts Malaria Drug Export Ban On Trump Call

Left-Wing Snopes Gives ‘Mostly False’ Rating To Claim That Trump Could Financially Benefit From Hydroxychloroquine

Donald Trump

Hydroxychloroquine

On Thursday, YouTube channel FreedomToons released a video mocking fact-checking website Snopes. After a cartoon version of FreedomToons creator Seamus Coughlin tells a joke to a friend via text message, Snopes, with a Siri-esque computerized female voice, interrupts.
&#8220;Fact Check: Did a priest, a rabbi, and a vampire walk into a bar?&#8221; Snopes asks. &#8220;This joke is Mostly False.&#8221;
After Seamus&#8217; friend informs him that &#8220;Snopes is fact-checking everyone&#8217;s private conversations now,&#8221; Seamus texts: &#8220;Lol.&#8221;
Once again, Snopes interrupts:
<blockquote>Fact Check: Did Seamus just &#8220;laugh out loud&#8221;? According to webcam and mic data, Mostly False.</blockquote>
This leads to the following hilarious exchange among the three:
<blockquote>SEAMUS: Wait, you were serious?!
FRIEND: Yeah, it’s social media dot com’s new policy to prevent fake news from spreading.
SEAMUS: How do I turn it off?
FRIEND: I don’t think we can.
SNOPES: Is it true that you can’t unenroll from Snopes automatically fact-checking all of your conversations? Mostly False.
SEAMUS: Uh&#8230;okay&#8230;good. I wish to unenroll from Snopes fact-checking.
SNOPES: You really wish to unenroll from our fact-checking?
SEAMUS: Yes.
SNOPES: Mostly False.
SEAMUS: WHAT?!
SNOPES: Sources indicate our fact checks are good for you, so it wouldn’t make sense for you to want to get rid of them.</blockquote>
After another frustrating interaction with Snopes, Seamus&#8217; friend says that there may be a way to shut down the fact-checker for good: &#8220;If there&#8217;s one thing Snopes doesn&#8217;t get, it&#8217;s irony.&#8221;
Seamus then tells Snopes: &#8220;The following statement is true: I&#8217;m lying.&#8221; This leads Snopes to question itself, and eventually self-destruct.
&#8220;What will become of us now?!&#8221; Seamus wonders aloud after killing Snopes. A newspaper then splashes onto the screen, with the headline: &#8220;Alex Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize.&#8221;
The text of the article reads:
<blockquote>In what has been universally recognized as the most deserved (as well as overdue) issuing of any award in the history of human achievement, Alex Jones has been given a Pulitzer Prize for his outstanding journalistic work exposing an interdimensional globalist cabal. The cabal, mostly composed of lizard-like humanoids, has been closely working with the LGBTQ frog alliance to ensure chemtrail levels are brought to an all-time high before the 2020 election in hopes of turning otherwise tough men into estrogen-filled Democrats. While the story is unsourced and may sound outrageous, Snopes is still missing and was unavailable to fact-check these claims. We see no alternative but to believe&#8230;</blockquote>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-OT_19mEau8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
This parody didn’t come out of thin air. FreedomToons’ Seamus Coughlin released a informative video several days prior to the parody detailing the back-and-forth between Snopes and Christian satirical website The Babylon Bee.
Since July of 2016, Snopes has &#8220;fact-checked&#8221; at least 33 satirical articles from The Babylon Bee, including the following:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/​">Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News?</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kermit-gosnell-as-surprise-dnc-speaker/">Kermit Gosnell as Surprise DNC Speaker</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omar-if-israel-is-so-innocent/">Ilhan Omar: &#8216;If Israel Is So Innocent, Then Why Do They Insist On Being Jews?&#8217;</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democrats-demand-kavanaugh-dna-test/">Democrats Demand Kavanaugh Submit To DNA Test To Prove He’s Not Actually Hitler</a></li>
</ul>
On July 24, Snopes published yet another &#8220;<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/​">fact check</a>&#8221; of a Babylon Bee piece that satirized a story about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas.
On July 19, Thomas tweeted that she had been &#8220;verbally assaulted in the grocery store by a white man who told me I was a lazy SOB and to go back to where I came from.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today I was verbally assaulted in the grocery store by a white man who told me I was a lazy SOB and to go back to where I came from bc I had to many items in the express lane. My husband wasn’t there to defend me because he is on Active Duty serving the country I came from USA!
— Erica Thomas (@itsericathomas) <a href="https://twitter.com/itsericathomas/status/1152417924315004928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Upon further investigation, the story fell apart.
<a href="https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/cobb-police-charges-will-filed-georgia-lawmaker-publix-dispute/fp9t5RJLXVSOTaMnVLmHEP/#">AJC</a> writes that Eric Sparkes, who is not &#8220;white,&#8221; but of Cuban descent, admitted to using an expletive toward Thomas, but claimed that he did not tell her to &#8220;go back.&#8221;
Further, AJC notes:
<blockquote>A Publix employee told a Cobb County officer that she witnessed part of the conversation and heard Thomas &#8220;continuously tell Eric Sparkes to &#8216;Go back where you came from!'&#8221; but did not hear Sparkes utter those words to Thomas&#8230;</blockquote>
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49908/fact-check-snopes-biased-read-fact-check-erica-james-barrett">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Thomas has since said she said that in response to Sparkes, but no witnesses heard him say that. A manager said he heard Sparkes call her &#8220;ignorant&#8221; and say &#8220;I know you people.&#8221; Sparkes denies using the phrase &#8220;you people&#8221; at any point.
Neither the police report nor the eye-witness accounts undermining Thomas&#8217; claim made their way into Snopes&#8217; &#8220;fact check.&#8221; Snopes also leaves out the fact that police announced Tuesday that after investigating the matter, they will not be pressing charges.</blockquote>
Despite the evidence suggesting Rep. Thomas&#8217; story was inaccurate, she has not deleted her initial tweet as of publication.
The satirical article from The Babylon Bee was titled: &#8220;<a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/georgia-lawmaker-claims-chick-fil-a-employee-told-her-to-go-back-to-where-she-came-from-later-clarifies-he-actually-just-said-my-pleasure​">Georgia Lawmaker Claims Chick-Fil-A Employee Told Her To Go Back To Her Country, Later Clarifies He Actually Said &#8216;My Pleasure.&#8217;</a>&#8221;
Snopes&#8217; original fact check of the piece <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49908/fact-check-snopes-biased-read-fact-check-erica-james-barrett">read</a>: &#8220;We&#8217;re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as &#8216;satire.'&#8221;
The piece further <a href="https://twitter.com/adam4d/status/1154465708484505600?s=21">stated</a>:
<blockquote>While this real-world incident stirred up a good amount of online anger, it wasn&#8217;t quite outrageous enough for the entertainment website Babylon Bee. In an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation, this website published a fictionalized version of the story, changing the location to Chick-fil-A, a fast-food restaurant known for its CEO&#8217;s opposition to same-sex marriage&#8230;
We found dozens of instances of social media users who were taken in by this ruse.</blockquote>
After this latest &#8220;fact check,&#8221; The Babylon Bee released a <a href="https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635">statement</a> defending their satirical site, which read in part:
<blockquote>Last week, Snopes fact-checked us again. We&#8217;re pretty used to that. But this time, instead of merely rating the article &#8220;false,&#8221; they questioned whether our work qualifies as satire, and even went so far as to suggest that we were deliberately deceiving our readers. Basically, they treated us as a source of intentionally misleading fake news, rather than as the legitimate, well-known satire publication that we are. This is a big deal.
As you know, fake news—which is distinguished from satire by its intent to mislead—was widely considered a serious issue in the last election cycle. As a result, social media networks like Facebook began partnering with fact-checkers to try and limit the distribution of fake news on their platforms. Snopes was one of them. At one point, a piece of ours was rated &#8220;false&#8221; by Snopes, prompting Facebook to threaten us with limitations and demonetization. We made a stink about this, and after some media attention shed light on the problem, Facebook apologized for their handling of the matter and admitted that satire is not the same as fake news.
We came out on top last time, but this latest smear from Snopes is both dishonest and disconcerting. We have no choice but to take it very seriously. For better or worse, the media, the public, and social networks all look to Snopes for authoritative answers. By lumping us in with fake news and questioning whether we really qualify as satire, Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us.</blockquote>
The Bee then noted that they had hired a law firm in case legal action was necessary, and sent a &#8220;demand letter&#8221; that Snopes change their &#8220;fact check.&#8221;
In response, Snopes altered their piece, and <a href="http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/​">issued</a> an editors&#8217; note:
<blockquote>Editors’ Note: Some readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee in its original satirical piece about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, and that was not the editors’ aim. To address any confusion, we have revised some of the wording mostly for tone and clarity. We are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire.</blockquote>
Further, Snopes added to their content rating list the term &#8220;Labeled Satire.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s the definition of &#8220;<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rating/labeled-satire/">Labeled Satire</a>&#8221; from Snopes:
<blockquote>This rating indicates that a claim is derived from content described by its creator and/or the wider audience as satire. Not all content described by its creator or audience as &#8220;satire&#8221; necessarily constitutes satire, and this rating does not make a distinction between &#8220;real&#8221; satire and content that may not be effectively recognized or understood as satire despite being labeled as such.</blockquote>
The Babylon Bee responded:
<div class="embed"><iframe width="500" height="293" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
Snopes also reported on a &#8220;<a href="https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-is-real/">study</a>&#8221; claiming Republicans were often fooled by stories from The Babylon Bee:
<blockquote>Satirical articles like those found on The Babylon Bee frequently showed up in our survey. In fact, stories published by The Bee were among the most shared factually inaccurate content in almost every survey we conducted. On one survey, The Babylon Bee had articles relating to five different falsehoods.</blockquote>
Here&#8217;s the problem – the <a href="http://rkellygarrett.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ConversationSatireSI.pdf​">study</a> doesn&#8217;t appear to have actually read the participants any real headlines from The Babylon Bee. Rather, they created statements based on the satirical website&#8217;s content.
For example, the study asked about an article from The Babylon Bee titled: &#8220;Ilhan Omar: &#8216;If Israel Is So Innocent, Then Why Do They Insist On Being Jews?'&#8221;
Instead of reading that headline, however, the surveyors read the following statement: &#8220;Representative Ilhan Omar said that being Jewish is an inherently hostile act, especially among those living in Israel,&#8221; then asked participants if they believed it was true or false.
For a Babylon Bee story titled, &#8220;Democrats Vow To Close Dangerous Gun-Buying Loophole Known As &#8216;The Second Amendment,'&#8221; the survey summarized: &#8220;Cory Booker is one of several prominent Democrats to describe the Second Amendment as a dangerous &#8216;loophole&#8217; that allows people to buy guns.&#8221;
Here’s a more serious video from FreedomToons dissecting the whole affair:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/REm4rt8LLtU" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

FreedomToons.

WATCH: FreedomToons Hilariously Skewers Snopes’ Extreme ‘Fact-Checking’ Measures

Conservatism

Leftism

Left-wing &#8220;fact-checking&#8221; site Snopes has an undeniable bias against The Babylon Bee, a Christian satire site it has routinely sought to deplatform and delegitimize by issuing bogus &#8220;False&#8221; ratings for articles the Bee clearly and expressly bills as comedic fake news.
Last week, Snopes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50733/snopes-escalates-attack-babylon-bee-justifies-paul-bois">escalated its attack</a> on The Babylon Bee by publishing a <a href="https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-is-real/">report</a> justifying its &#8220;fact-checking&#8221; harassment of the comedy site by suggesting that Republicans are too stupid to know the difference between fake news and satire:
<blockquote>Our study on misinformation and social media lasted six months. Every two weeks, we identified 10 of the most shared fake political stories on social media, which included satirical stories. Others were fake news reports meant to deliberately mislead readers.
We then asked a representative group of over 800 Americans to tell us if they believed claims based on those trending stories. By the end of the study, we had measured respondents&#8217; beliefs about 120 widely shared falsehoods.
Satirical articles like those found on The Babylon Bee frequently showed up in our survey. In fact, stories published by The Bee were among the most shared factually inaccurate content in almost every survey we conducted. On one survey, The Babylon Bee had articles relating to five different falsehoods.
For each claim, we asked people to tell us whether it was true or false and how confident they were in their belief. Then we computed the proportion of Democrats and of Republicans who described these statements as &#8220;definitely true.&#8221;
If we zero in on The Babylon Bee, a few patterns stand out.</blockquote>
The report came just weeks after the Bee <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/satire-site-looking-into-legal-action-against-snopes-over-fact-checking">recruited legal representation</a> in response to Snopes publishing an allegedly defamatory piece accusing the outlet of using satire as a &#8220;ruse&#8221; to deliberately mislead its readers — a charge that Snopes has, notably, never once leveled against the openly satirical site The Onion.
On Monday, The Babylon Bee said in a Facebook post that Snopes has not relented in its harassment and has even doubled down on the attacks by creating a &#8220;Labeled Satire&#8221; rating.
&#8220;Snopes is at it again. We had hoped that a demand letter from our attorneys would prompt changes. And it seemed to. Snopes did go back and edit their defamatory fact-check, revising some of the language that suggested we were deliberately misleading people,&#8221; The Babylon Bee said. &#8220;However, they&#8217;ve subsequently published a new rating for satire called &#8216;Labeled Satire.&#8217; Their explanation of this rating says the label &#8216;satire&#8217; is often misapplied to content that doesn&#8217;t really qualify as satire — and Snopes has made it clear that they feel our content falls into that category.&#8221;
Indeed, Snopes defined the &#8220;<a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rating/labeled-satire/">Labeled Satire</a>&#8221; rating as a means to reflect the content creator&#8217;s description of the material, rather than to serve as an objective label.
&#8220;This rating indicates that a claim is derived from content described by its creator and/or the wider audience as satire,&#8221; says Snopes of the rating. &#8220;Not all content described by its creator or audience as ‘satire’ necessarily constitutes satire, and this rating does not make a distinction between &#8216;real&#8217; satire and content that may not be effectively recognized or understood as satire despite being labeled as such.&#8221;
Translation: We determine what is and what is not satire — the actual creators of the satire be damned.
&#8220;From their view, we&#8217;re just pretenders, using the label &#8216;satire&#8217; to our advantage so we can hoodwink the masses,&#8221; The Babylon Bee continued. &#8220;It&#8217;s really extraordinary, especially since they&#8217;ve acknowledged in private communication with us that there is a &#8216;clear distinction&#8217; between our satire and intentionally misleading fake news. For some reason, they refuse to acknowledge the clear distinction in their published articles.&#8221;
<div class="embed"><iframe width="500" height="294" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>

Tape Mouth

The Babylon Bee Hits Back At Snopes For Biased Attacks

Menu