Snopes is no longer a credible source of information.

[Bisjac]

even if this were true, if your standard for credibility is never making a mistake, then there is no credible source

wikileaks 100% track record

i like "news" that just shows you proven data and dosnt tell a story at all.

[Ad Bot]

[Master Matthew²]

wikileaks 100% track record

i like "news" that just shows you proven data and dosnt tell a story at all.

But that's not what sells buddy, that's not what sells!

[Ipquarx]

wikileaks 100% track record

i like "news" that just shows you proven data and dosnt tell a story at all.

As much as everyone would like it to be true, wikileaks is not 100% reliable. They pushed hard on the whole "Clinton was wearing an earpiece during debates" conspiracy theory that was debunked.

This is not saying snopes is perfect either... No website/group is 100% reliable. Ever.

[Nonnel]

i like "news" that just shows you proven data and dosnt tell a story at all.

like the article in question? it straight up just says what is/is not true

[Bisjac]

They pushed hard on...

where is the debunk? another source of a source of a source that some 3rd rate left conspiracy site told you about?
citation needed. and that should be very easy if it exists.
wikileaks posted real proven emails that showed hillary planning to cheat. they didnt decide if ear pieces were used or not.

[IkeTheGeneric]

I mean, if they corrected incorrect information within 24 hours, that makes them better reporters than like at least 99% of news sites lol.

It's just more insane political ramblings from bisjac and tony, trying to make sense of it is mind-frying

[Ipquarx]

citation needed. and that should be very easy if it exists.

Gladly.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/774023424498892800
http://web.archive.org/web/20170324023827/https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/774023424498892800



This was tweeted right when the far-right corners of the internet were going crazy with the conspiracy that Clinton supposedly had an earpiece during one of the earlier democratic debates. Just as an example of the effect this had, places like /r/HillaryForPrison, /r/The_Donald and others used this to further justify their hatred for her despite the fact that this never happened.

Not only does it say state.goy (not suspicious at all), not only is the date 2009, but the context of the conversation was that she was going to the UN. Wikileaks, just like almost every other news organization out there, read the headline of some conspiracy theorists blog, didn't check it even slightly, and then published it. They are not perfect, don't try to make them out to be.

[Bisjac]

that is a direct real email. a real proven email that exists.
you said wikileaks is pushing its agenda. Wikileaks didnt seem to say anything at all.

[TableSalt]

???

[Nonnel]

that is a direct real email. a real proven email that exists.
you said wikileaks is pushing its agenda. Wikileaks didnt seem to say anything at all.

an irrelevant email posted during the height of a controversy surrounding her wearing an earpiece during a debate, specifically to mislead people into thinking that was true even though it was proven not to be.

[Foxscotch]

that's it, the BBC's no longer a credible source of information. they said something I disagree with, you see

[p0rtalGeek]