Snopes Beclowns Itself

[Brainster]

I've never been impressed by Snopes; they seem to cherry pick what needs to be investigoogled and what doesn't deserve scrutiny.

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

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

What is that deeper truth, you ask?

Other black women have had their recipes stolen by whites:

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

Basically, although there is zero evidence for it in this case and lots of evidence the other way (which Snopes does cite), gosh it's unproven and if you don't read past the headline you'd think there was some truth to the claim instead of just "truth."

 

[Checkmite]

"Unproven" is what Snopes calls any claim that can't be verified. There's nothing wrong with this claim being ruled "unproven".

And no, nobody would see "unproven" and think "there must be some truth to this".

 

[Cavemonster]

In the articles I've read it seems that their standard is to list a claim as unproven if there isn't evidence proving or disproving it, reserving false for claims with clear evidence against them or clear evidence of fabrication.

Seems like a reasonable standard. Why should you expect them to call this particular claim false?

 

[Checkmite]

I think Brainster seems to take exception to the article pointing out that, historically, white entrepreneurs have been known to take credit for recipes or other fruits of labor or ingenuity by people of color, and would have preferred if Snopes omitted that context altogether and simply declared that the lack of corroborating evidence for this specific claim makes it "false".

 

[Brainster]

How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?

 

[casebro]

It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40.

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

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

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

I wonder if anybody has ever run the Col's genes? Any black % would have been hidden back in those days.

 

[Checkmite]

How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?

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

Anyone who has read Snopes since the early days is familiar with how it adds context to rumors like this; it's not a "new" thing.

 

[Elagabalus]

It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40. Cooks without the Col's franchise called it "Broasting"....

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Now go watch the appropriate Good Eats Episode.

 

[Giordano]

How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?

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

Further, "Snopes beclowns itself"? Based on the label of not proven (the conservatively correct conclusion) vs false? Silly exaggeration not based on the facts.

 

[smartcooky]

How about simply saying that they have no evidence it is true and much evidence it is false?

In other words, "Unproven"*

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


* That said, I would like to see them reach a conclusion of "Unlikely" in this sort of situation.

 

[kellyb]

I actually have seen snopes get things wrong before.

This is not one of those cases.

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

 

[smartcooky]

I actually have seen snopes get things wrong before.

This is not one of those cases.

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

Agreed

For Brainster's further education

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

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

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

 

[Venom]

Snopes does that a lot. It's not held as evidence of anything, just precedent. It's not a simple fact-check site you see a lot now in CNN and elsewhere, never has been.

 

[Checkmite]

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

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

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

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

Perhaps this thread would've been better titled "ISF Poster Beclowns Myself".

 

[Trebuchet]

"Beclown" apparently means "didn't say what I wanted them to say based on my biases."

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Beclown" apparently means "didn't say what I wanted them to say based on my biases."

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

 

[autumn1971]

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

Every week’s winer: a trump supporter given a book and asked about its content.

 

[Upchurch]

I've never been impressed by Snopes; they seem to cherry pick what needs to be investigoogled and what doesn't deserve scrutiny.

That seems to be a common complaint about fact-checkers. Why can't they have infinite resources to check all-the-things? It's almost like they have to prioritize which claims they check based on some criteria that doesn't necessarily match critics' priorities.

FYI, they published their "cherry picking" process on their website under About Us > Transparency

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

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

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

[snip]

Basically, although there is zero evidence for it in this case and lots of evidence the other way (which Snopes does cite), gosh it's unproven and if you don't read past the headline you'd think there was some truth to the claim instead of just "truth."

Others have pointed out that this is a ridiculous thing to argue. I would just like to add my voice to theirs.

 

[Darat]

It's not so much the recipe as the technique. The Col figured out that franchises of pressure fryers would work. Pressure fryers cook chicken parts in 15 minutes, so diners had the time to wait. Open fryers took 30-40.

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

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

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

Link?

 

[Upchurch]

Link?

Note to speak for casebro, but I happened to be on the site from last post.

https://www.snopes.com/eye-of-the-beholder/