Snopes labeled an obviously satirical story as 'false', potentially threatening the future of the Babylon Bee website

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’re in a time where the satiricaly ridiculous is not beyond the realm of possibility.
 
Why on earth would you worry? The Snopes article itself clarifies that The Babylon Bee is a satirical website. It’s likely that not as many people are familiar with the the Bee as they are with The Onion. I do think that Snopes was having a Slow News Day, (“Here’s a story. It’s false because the site is satirical.”) but I hardly see it as a threat to Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Snopes has revised their rating system so that items like this can still be fact-checked, but instead of calling them “false” they now call them “labeled satire”. That way people who did not recognize it as satire can still see that it is not true, but it does not have the same risk of citations from Facebook.

I looked at Babylon Bee a little and I can see how some people (not many) might think some story is true. In fact, even the Onion has run into trouble with its satire.

In 2013 the editors of The Onion got an angry email from Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen. Back then, Cohen was an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, and his client was just a TV mogul, still years away from announcing his first serious presidential bid. Cohen was fuming over a satirical article published under Trump’s name with the headline, “When You’re Feeling Low, Just Remember I’ll Be Dead In About 15 Or 20 Years.” On Trump’s behalf, Cohen demanded that The Onion immediately remove the article and apologize. “This commentary goes way beyond defamation and, if not immediately removed, I will take all actions necessary to ensure your actions do not go without consequence,” Cohen wrote, according to a copy of the email provided to POLITICO. “Guide yourself accordingly.”

That’s a lot more serious than just being labeled “false” by Snopes. “But it was clearly labeled as satire!”
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Why on earth would you worry? The Snopes article itself clarifies that The Babylon Bee is a satirical website
Click to expand...
It matters because Snopes and others conclusions are used to automatically demote or block content elsewhere.

That is, if someone posts on FaceTwit, “Look at this hilarious bit on the alpha-centaurian illegals in the Trump administration,” and scopes has labeled it as false, FaceTwit will use that electronic entry, without human involvement, to not show the content, block the twit itself, or put warning labels on it.

OTOH, I looked at the Babylon Bee for the first time because of this coverage, and repeatedly laughed my head off . . . [“Reader sues Bee for medical costs to reattach head!”]

Come to think of it, the first time I found the Onion was for the coverage when several formerly respectable news outlets repeated their article about THC being implanted in orange trees . . . but the Onion went flat long, long, ago, and hasn’t been worth just checking out.
 
dochawk said:
It matters because Snopes and others conclusions are used to automatically demote or block content elsewhere.
Click to expand...
As I posted above, that will no longer happen because Snopes is not going to label them false.
OTOH, I looked at the Babylon Bee for the first time because of this coverage, and repeatedly laughed my head off . . . [“Reader sues Bee for medical costs to reattach head!”]

Come to think of it, the first time I found the Onion was for the coverage when several formerly respectable news outlets repeated their article about THC being implanted in orange trees . . . but the Onion went flat long, long, ago, and hasn’t been worth just checking out.
Click to expand...
People often find it much easier to laugh at satire that agrees with their political leanings than at satire that goes against those leanings.
 
In any event, I’m off to read the Babylon Bee . . .

That was really the only way out of this mess for Snopes . . . or at least the least humiliating/ridiculous exit . . .

I prefer sites whose humor crosses the spectrum. (Right now Politico’s Friday political cartoon selection is my favorite, although we rather clearly don’t share politics . . . )

hawk
 
Last edited:
Sometimes the Bee has been surprisingly close to the truth.
 
The Babylon Bee is amusing, but I don’t lay awake nights worrying about its future.

I additionally don’t see how its future is threatened if it’s a simple matter of labeling it “satire”. A lot of people are not discerning enough to tell satire from reality, especially when these satirical publications do often come close to the truth as someone said.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Snopes has revised their rating system so that items like this can still be fact-checked, but instead of calling them “false” they now call them “labeled satire”.
Click to expand...
Satire has started false rumors, even here. Some people do not get satire. Maybe the people at Snopes need to lighten up.

Or maybe, the whole controversy is satire on their part!!! 😏

I use Snopes like I use Wikipedia. It is a good place to start from, as they use references that can be checked. In this day and age, such sites are more relevant than ever to shine light on the lies and falsehoods of the political right, and the political left.
 
Last edited:
Catholic Herald worried about fact checking! Veggie tales characters fear dismissal!

The Catholic Herald today started fact checking fact checkers. “If they can do it to us, we better do it to them.”

From now on, they will employ a team to constantly surveil fact checkers, checking whether they are checking facts, lies, satire, and any other formats they can come up with. Nonfacts will be clearly identified to keep social media from stumbling on to facts.

“We want fact checkers to check facts. If it is not a fact, the Catholic Herald will cover it.”
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I additionally don’t see how its future is threatened if it’s a simple matter of labeling it “satire”.
Click to expand...
The satire label came after the controversy, in which Snopes labeled satire as “false.”

The new label is Snopes’ fig leaf as it backs away from having done something incredibly stupid . . .

Without this (and assuming that FaceTwit doesn’t take “satire” as the same as “false” in blocking/demoting/demonetizing), the false label of false (which they used until they got cost) would drastically cut the hits from something clever that people tried to share.
Dovekin said:
Veggie tales characters fear dismissal!
Click to expand...
Well, if we’re going to theology-check . . . yeah, veggie tales would be in big trouble.
 
Most of these websites existed before Facetwit, and they will continue to exist after Facetwit is dead, which I’m predicting will happen within the next 10 years.
 
Would that all be as open to criticism. They clarified a subcategory of false to being satire. I fail to see how this hurt a satire site though. I would bet it increases traffic.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
I additionally don’t see how its future is threatened if it’s a simple matter of labeling it “satire”.
Click to expand...
The satire label came after the controversy, in which Snopes labeled satire as “false.”
Click to expand...
Of course. Snopes does not want to upset anyone unnecessarily. I would not call it a fig leaf, for it doesn’t cover anything up anything they are embarrassed about. It looks like a reasonable compromise with the complainers.
 
dochawk said:
Without this (and assuming that FaceTwit doesn’t take “satire” as the same as “false” in blocking/demoting/demonetizing), the false label of false (which they used until they got cost) would drastically cut the hits from something clever that people tried to share.
Click to expand...
Pew has determined that 69% of Americans use Facebook. A smaller percentage still will access Babylon Bee articles via FB, and a smaller percentage than that will take them seriously while commenters chime in to remind them that it’s satire.

Sorry-not-sorry, Catholic Herald. Of all the modern-day threats to the Catholic faith, the fate of a satirical non-Catholic website as perceived by social media users ranks pretty low on my list.
 
Last edited:
I love BabylonBee. They are very sharp and very funny.

Congratulations on getting “snoped”!

🤣😃
 
It seems that both literacy and a sense of humor have become endangered. But how could they not, in the age of Twitter.
 
The change will certainly help, unless FaceTwit treats “satire” as a category comparable to “false”.

And in this casein wasn’t so much “open to criticism” but “did something obnoxious and stupid, Ana found a fig leaf to avoid admitting it.”

Had snopes tired longer to defend this hill, it would have paid a staggering price in being taken seriously in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top