Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Snopes

Snopes.com is a fact-checking website founded in 1994 by David Mikkelson as an outgrowth of his interests in urban legends and folklore, initially serving as a reference for debunking myths, rumors, and misinformation circulating via early internet channels like chain emails.^[1] The site has evolved into one of the oldest and most extensive online resources for investigating viral claims, providing detailed contextual analysis and veracity ratings such as "True," "False," or "Mixture" to claims spanning hoaxes, political statements, and contemporary digital falsehoods.^[2]^[3] Snopes gained prominence in the 2000s for its role in combating internet-based disinformation, becoming a go-to authority for journalists and the public on folklore-derived stories and emerging online deceptions.^[4] Its operations expanded to include partnerships with social media platforms for content moderation, though such collaborations faced scrutiny amid broader debates over censorship and selective verification.^[4] The organization has verified thousands of claims, emphasizing transparency in sourcing and methodology, and maintains no direct ties to political entities or state funding.^[5] Ownership of Snopes underwent significant turbulence, including a 2016 licensing deal with Proper Media that led to protracted legal battles over control, resolved in favor of Mikkelson retaining editorial authority.^[6] In 2021, revelations of plagiarism by Mikkelson prompted the retraction of over 60 articles and his ban from authoring new content, contributing to his 2022 departure as CEO, after which co-owners including Chris Richmond assumed full ownership.^[7]^[8] While empirical analyses affirm Snopes' high consistency and factual reliability—showing near-perfect alignment with peer fact-checkers like PolitiFact on overlapping claims with only one conflicting verdict in hundreds reviewed—it has drawn criticism from conservative observers for alleged left-leaning selectivity in topic coverage and rating leniency toward certain political narratives, though data-driven studies highlight its emphasis on affirming truthful assertions over debunking.^[9]^[9]

Founding and Early Development

Origins in Urban Legends Debunking

Snopes originated in 1994 when David Mikkelson launched the Urban Legends Reference Pages (snopes.com), an early website dedicated to compiling and debunking urban legends, folklore, hoaxes, and circulating rumors.^[10]^[11] The initiative stemmed from Mikkelson's participation in Usenet newsgroups like alt.folklore.urban, which facilitated discussions of contemporary myths and apocryphal tales, as well as his appreciation for William Faulkner's fictional Snopes family, inspiring the site's name.^[10]^[12] Co-created with Barbara Mikkelson, the site functioned as one of the internet's first dedicated repositories for folklore analysis, presenting user-submitted queries alongside evidence-based investigations rather than mere aggregations of online chatter.^[10]^[13] Early content emphasized verifying claims through primary sources, eyewitness accounts, and historical records, categorizing outcomes as true, false, mixture, or unproven when insufficient data existed.^[11] This approach contrasted with the era's prevalent chain emails and unvetted anecdotes, offering structured rebuttals to stories like phantom hitchhikers or contaminated candy warnings that proliferated in pre-social media culture.^[14] The Mikkelsons operated without formal journalistic training, relying instead on methodical research and cross-referencing to dismantle myths, which resonated with an audience seeking clarity amid the web's nascent misinformation landscape.^[13] Features like "The Repository of Lost Legends" (T.R.O.L.L.) introduced fabricated exemplars to illustrate pitfalls in credulity, underscoring the site's pedagogical aim beyond rote debunking.^[10] By prioritizing verifiable evidence over narrative appeal, Snopes established itself as a pioneer in folklore scrutiny, predating broader fact-checking applications.^[4]

Initial Growth and Challenges in the 1990s and 2000s

Snopes, launched in 1994 by David Mikkelson as a website dedicated to investigating urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore, saw steady growth in the mid-to-late 1990s amid the expanding reach of the internet. Initially operated as a part-time endeavor drawing from Mikkelson's interests in diverse subjects, the site gained traction through word-of-mouth among early online communities, including Usenet groups and email lists, where users sought verification of circulating myths such as phantom hitchhikers or contaminated products. By capitalizing on the web's novelty as a repository for shared anecdotes, Snopes positioned itself as an authoritative reference, with content updated manually based on reader submissions.^[11]^[4] Entering the 2000s, growth accelerated with the explosion of chain emails, virus alerts, and consumer fraud rumors, which drove higher traffic and submissions as personal computing and broadband adoption broadened. The site's role expanded to address timely digital-age deceptions, including warnings about nonexistent threats like the "Budweiser frogs" email scam or bogus Microsoft giveaways, reflecting the era's shift toward viral misinformation. Incorporation as Bardav Inc. in 2003 by Mikkelson and his then-wife Barbara formalized operations, enabling a transition to full-time dedication and modest hiring, supported primarily by advertising revenue.^[15]^[16] Challenges persisted due to resource constraints in a volunteer-heavy model, with the Mikkelsons handling verification amid surging query volumes without advanced tools or staff. Manual research dominated, often involving phone calls, archival dives, and cross-referencing print sources in an age of nascent digital databases, leading to delays in addressing fast-spreading claims. The post-September 11, 2001, influx of event-related rumors—such as unfounded tales of supermarket sales tax exemptions aiding relief efforts—tested scalability, highlighting tensions between thoroughness and timeliness while foreshadowing demands for broader fact-checking. Funding reliance on ads exposed vulnerabilities to fluctuating internet economics, though no major financial crises were reported during this phase.^[17]^[18]

Expansion into Political Fact-Checking

Shift to Current Events and Elections in the 2010s

In the 2010s, Snopes broadened its fact-checking efforts beyond urban legends to encompass rapidly spreading claims tied to current events and U.S. elections, propelled by the explosion of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which amplified unverified political rumors. This evolution reflected a response to surging reader submissions on timely topics, with the site's archives showing a marked uptick in articles addressing election-year misinformation starting around 2012. For instance, Snopes verified claims related to the 2012 presidential contest, including distortions about candidate Barack Obama's policies and voter irregularities, though coverage remained secondary to folklore until mid-decade.^[13] The 2016 presidential election catalyzed a pronounced pivot, as Snopes published hundreds of pieces dissecting viral narratives, such as allegations of widespread voter fraud, Hillary Clinton's health rumors, and Donald Trump's statements on topics like immigration and foreign policy. On October 18, 2016, the site issued a detailed examination of Project Veritas videos purporting to expose Democratic election rigging, rating core elements as misleading due to selective editing and lack of corroboration.^[19] This era saw Snopes' traffic surge, with political queries overwhelming traditional hoax investigations, as co-founder David Mikkelson noted in interviews attributing the change to a "post-truth" environment where facts competed with partisan echo chambers.^[15] The expansion invited scrutiny over potential selection bias, with conservative outlets arguing Snopes disproportionately targeted right-leaning claims—a pattern some data-driven reviews later quantified as skewing left in topic choice during election peaks, though verdicts on verifiable falsehoods held up under replication.^[9] Snopes defended its methodology as query-driven and evidence-based, without institutional ties to parties, but the political focus strained resources and fueled legal disputes over site control amid heightened visibility.^[20] By decade's end, this shift positioned Snopes as a key player in combating election disinformation, albeit amid ongoing debates about neutrality in an polarized media landscape.^[18]

Response to COVID-19 and Broader Misinformation (2020s)

Snopes significantly expanded its fact-checking operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, launching a dedicated collection of verifications for coronavirus-related claims starting in early 2020, amid what it described as an accompanying "infodemic" of rumors.^[21] This included debunking assertions such as the development of implantable microchips for COVID detection, which Snopes rated false, noting the referenced technology was a pre-pandemic sensor incapable of virus-specific identification.^[22] The organization also addressed vaccine-related misinformation, for instance rating as misleading a recirculated list of alleged Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine side effects that originated from a 2010s document unrelated to the shots.^[23] Snopes highlighted resource constraints in the fact-checking sector, stating in March 2020 that the pandemic's volume of claims exposed underfunding and limited capacity to verify all submissions promptly.^[24] On the pandemic's origins, Snopes initially emphasized natural zoonotic spillover as the prevailing scientific consensus, arguing in July 2021 that Occam's razor did not favor a lab leak due to insufficient new evidence shifting from early assessments.^[25] It advocated for formal investigation of the lab leak hypothesis in June 2021, citing unresolved questions about the virus's emergence in Wuhan, including proximity of the Huanan market to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.^[26]^[27] By March 2023, Snopes reported U.S. Department of Energy and FBI assessments deeming a lab origin "most likely," while maintaining that peer-reviewed scientific evidence continued to support a natural source over engineered release.^[28] These positions drew limited direct criticism in academic analyses, which found Snopes and similar outlets like PolitiFact generally consistent in ratings across COVID claims, though such alignment raised questions about potential echo chambers in fact-checking amid institutional biases favoring zoonotic explanations early in the pandemic.^[9] Snopes also clarified political claims tied to COVID responses, such as rating false the assertion that former President Donald Trump explicitly advised injecting bleach, while acknowledging his April 2020 suggestion to explore intravenous disinfectants or light therapies, which he later framed as exploratory.^[29] It debunked exaggerated vaccine efficacy interpretations, like a January 2022 claim that 95% of Omicron cases occurred in vaccinated individuals, attributing the statistic to high vaccination coverage rather than vaccine failure.^[30] In the broader 2020s context, Snopes extended its misinformation efforts to election-related falsehoods and ongoing pandemic narratives, such as RFK Jr.'s suggestions linking vaccines to historical events like the 1918 flu, amid persistent challenges in distinguishing evolving data from deliberate distortion.^[31] Data-driven reviews indicated fact-checkers like Snopes increased output during peak COVID and election periods, with methodological reliance on peer-reviewed sources and official statements, though critiques noted potential overemphasis on consensus views that later faced evidentiary pushback, as in shifting intelligence assessments on origins.^[9]^[32]

Leadership and Governance

Key Figures and Internal Operations

David Mikkelson co-founded Snopes in 1994 alongside Barbara Mikkelson (née Hamel), initially as a resource for debunking urban legends; he served as the site's primary researcher, writer, and editor-in-chief for decades, authoring or co-authoring the majority of early content.^[4] In August 2021, following a BuzzFeed News investigation revealing plagiarism in over 60 of his articles—where he had lifted passages from mainstream outlets without attribution—Mikkelson publicly apologized and was indefinitely barred by Snopes from producing new content or editorial material.^[7] ^[33] Despite this, he retained a partial ownership stake in the company as of the scandal's aftermath, though his operational involvement diminished significantly.^[7] Ownership and leadership transitioned in the late 2010s amid legal disputes; after a contentious 2017 lawsuit with majority stakeholder Proper Media over site control, Snopes Media Group (SMG) emerged as the parent entity.^[6] In September 2022, SMG co-owners Chris Richmond (60% stake) and Drew Schoentrup (40% stake) acquired 100% of the shares previously held by Proper Media, consolidating full ownership and operational authority under their control.^[8] ^[11] Other notable figures include former executive editor Doreen Marchionni and chief operations officer Vinny Green, who co-signed management apologies during the 2021 scandal, though their current statuses remain unspecified in recent disclosures.^[34] Internally, Snopes operates with a lean staff of approximately 17 employees as of recent estimates, structured around a small editorial team for fact-checking, supported by engineering, development, and accounting roles.^[35] ^[36] Core operations emphasize verification through primary sources, cross-referencing multiple independent references, and adherence to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) code of principles, including transparency in methods and corrections policy; the site discloses funding influences and editorial processes on its "About" page.^[11] Claim selection prioritizes high-traffic or reader-submitted rumors, often viral social media content, with internal guidelines for research compiled in public "Snopes-ing 101" toolkits that outline steps like tracing origins and avoiding unverified chains.^[37] ^[38] This model relies on a centralized editorial workflow, where writers investigate independently before publication, though the plagiarism incident highlighted vulnerabilities in internal oversight and content sourcing.^[7]

Plagiarism Scandal Involving David Mikkelson (2021)

In August 2021, a BuzzFeed News investigation revealed that David Mikkelson, co-founder and then-CEO of Snopes, had plagiarized content from dozens of articles published by mainstream news outlets, including the Associated Press, Reuters, and local newspapers.^[7]^[39] The plagiarized pieces, primarily from 2015 and 2016 with some as recent as 2019, involved Mikkelson copying substantial portions of text without attribution, often presenting the material as original Snopes reporting on urban legends or current events.^[7]^[40] Prompted by the BuzzFeed report, Snopes initiated an internal review that identified 60 affected articles, which were subsequently retracted and replaced with notices acknowledging the plagiarism.^[34]^[7] Mikkelson publicly admitted responsibility on August 13, 2021, stating, "There is no excuse for my serious lapses in judgment," and expressing regret for failing to uphold journalistic standards.^[34]^[40] Snopes senior management issued a collective apology, emphasizing that the misconduct violated the site's core values of transparency and integrity, while staff writers separately condemned the actions as undermining Snopes' mission to combat misinformation.^[34]^[41] As a consequence, Snopes barred Mikkelson from authoring or editing content indefinitely, though he retained ownership of approximately half the company and continued in a non-editorial capacity.^[7]^[39] The scandal drew criticism for highlighting potential vulnerabilities in Snopes' internal oversight, given Mikkelson's central role in content production prior to the incident, but no external legal actions or further financial penalties were reported.^[7]^[39] Snopes committed to enhanced editorial protocols, including stricter plagiarism checks, to prevent recurrence.^[34]

Ownership Transition and Recent Changes (2022–Present)

In September 2022, Snopes resolved protracted ownership disputes that had persisted since 2017, stemming from the 2015 divorce of founders David and Barbara Mikkelson and subsequent involvement of external investors. On September 16, 2022, David Mikkelson stepped down as CEO and board member, with board member Chris Richmond succeeding him in the role.^[8] On September 23, 2022, Richmond and co-shareholder Drew Schoentrup, who had initially acquired a 50% stake in Snopes Media Group Inc. in 2016, purchased the remaining shares from Mikkelson, attaining full 100% ownership.^[42]^[8] The parties described the settlement of all legal matters as amicable, enabling renewed focus on core operations without further litigation.^[42] Mikkelson, who had faced a 2021 plagiarism scandal leading to his suspension from writing, fully retired from the company that year.^[36] Under the new ownership, Snopes implemented backend technical upgrades in 2022, including improvements to website performance and page-load speeds, alongside a management refresh to stabilize finances strained by prior legal costs and revenue dips.^[43] As of July 3, 2025, Snopes Media Group remains wholly owned by Richmond (60%) and Schoentrup (40%), with no additional shareholders, investors, or external funding influences reported.^[44] On June 30, 2025, a majority of Snopes' editorial staff—80% of eligible employees—announced plans to unionize as the Snopes Guild, affiliated with The NewsGuild, to address concerns over transparency, pay equity, job security, formalized HR policies, and protections amid rising misinformation pressures.^[45] The group sought voluntary recognition from management, including CEO Richmond and co-owner Schoentrup, by July 14, 2025, reflecting broader trends in digital media unionization.^[45] No further updates on the unionization outcome were publicly detailed by October 2025.^[45]

Content Production and Methodology

Website Features and Fact-Check Ratings

Snopes' website features a homepage organized into categories such as News & Politics, Entertainment, Science & Technology, and Daily Trivia, alongside a prominent "Fact or Fiction?" interactive element encouraging user engagement with claims.^[46] The navigation menu provides access to sections including Top Posts, What's New, Search, and Contact, facilitating quick browsing of recent and popular content.^[46] A dedicated search bar enables users to query thousands of archived fact-checks and investigations, while the site offers tools like tip submission for potential rumors and optional membership for ad-free access and newsletters.^[46] Fact-check articles are presented in an archive at /fact-check/, listing recent rumors with links to detailed verdicts, often browsable by recency or popularity, and emphasizing the specific claim under scrutiny.^[47] Central to fact-check presentation is Snopes' rating system, which assigns labels to claims to convey credibility without binary true/false categorizations, acknowledging nuances in evidence.^[3] The primary scale includes True (claim fully supported by evidence), Mostly True (claim accurate in essence with minor inaccuracies), Mixture (claim contains elements of truth and falsehood), Mostly False (claim inaccurate overall with some true aspects), and False (claim contradicted by evidence).^[9]^[48] Additional ratings address specific contexts, such as "Originated as Satire" for content repurposed from satirical sources without disclosure, or others like Unproven for insufficient evidence.^[49] These ratings appear prominently in article titles and summaries, with full explanations tied to the evaluated claim statement for clarity and fairness.^[49]

Verification Processes and Claim Selection Criteria

Snopes selects claims for fact-checking primarily through reader submissions, search engine trends, social media virality, and monitoring of trending topics across platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.^[49] Reader tips are accepted via a contact form, with prioritization given to prominent or widely circulated rumors, misunderstandings, or trivia that garner significant public interest, irrespective of political affiliation.^[49] Selection is constrained by limited staffing and resources, excluding topics deemed outside their scope, such as philosophical questions like "Does God exist?" or inappropriate content.^[50] The verification process begins with assignment of a claim to an editorial staff member for initial research and drafting, often involving multiple contributors.^[50] Researchers contact primary sources of the claim, consult subject-matter experts, and examine documented materials including news articles, academic journals, books, government records, and legislative texts.^[50] Preference is given to non-partisan, verifiable evidence such as peer-reviewed studies and official data, with explicit caution advised toward potentially biased partisan sources.^[50] Methodologies adapt to the claim's nature—for instance, reverse image searches for visual hoaxes or textual analysis for policy claims—with no uniform protocol applied across all cases.^[50] Drafts undergo review by at least one editor, incorporating revisions as needed before publication.^[50] All sources used are listed in an expandable section at the article's conclusion, enabling reader verification, while substantive updates or rating changes are flagged in an "Update" box with explanations.^[50] Snopes adheres to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) code of principles, which mandates transparency, corrections policies, and non-partisanship in operations.^[11] Despite these self-described safeguards, external analyses have questioned the consistency of application, particularly in politically charged topics where source selection may reflect institutional leanings common in fact-checking outlets.^[9]

Financial Model and Sustainability

Revenue Streams and Independence Claims

Snopes primarily derives its revenue from programmatic digital advertising, paid memberships, direct reader contributions, and merchandise sales, which collectively account for nearly all of its funding as of July 2025.^[44] The organization has historically supplemented these streams through occasional crowdfunding campaigns, such as a 2017 drive that raised over $500,000 amid a legal dispute with its former advertising vendor, Proper Media, which withheld revenue shares.^[51] ^[52] In 2021, another campaign collected over $1.7 million to cover legal fees from ongoing lawsuits, which Snopes reported consumed 20-30% of its annual revenues.^[53] Earlier partnerships with social media platforms provided targeted income; for instance, Snopes received $100,000 from Facebook in 2017 for participating in its third-party fact-checking program, though it withdrew from the arrangement in 2019 citing inadequate compensation relative to workload.^[54] No ongoing payments from Meta (Facebook's parent) were reported after Meta announced in January 2025 it would discontinue third-party fact-checking contracts in favor of user-generated notes.^[55] Snopes asserts editorial independence by operating without funding from state agencies, political actors, or major donors such as George Soros or the Koch brothers, a stance it has publicly denied since at least 2016.^[49] ^[5] As a member of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Snopes discloses its funding sources annually, including budget breakdowns dating to 2016, and claims transparency through source linking and reader empowerment via documented evidence in articles.^[5] Ownership by Snopes Media Group—split 60% to Chris Richmond and 40% to Drew Schoentrup since a 2017 transition—further supports its self-described status as an independent entity free from external corporate or ideological control.^[11] However, past revenue dependencies on tech platforms like Facebook have drawn scrutiny from critics questioning potential influences on content prioritization, though Snopes maintains that such partnerships did not compromise its non-partisan methodology.^[54] Advertising remains the core revenue driver, evaluated externally by IFCN for adherence to independence standards.^[56]

Historical Funding Disputes and Economic Pressures

In 2017, Snopes faced a severe funding crisis stemming from a legal dispute over ownership and revenue sharing with Proper Media, a third-party vendor that managed its advertising operations. The conflict originated from the 2015 divorce of co-founders David and Barbara Mikkelson, after which Barbara sold her 50% stake in Snopes' parent company, Bardav Inc., to Proper Media executives; David Mikkelson subsequently terminated the ad management contract in May 2017, prompting Proper Media to withhold all advertising revenues—Snopes' primary income source—leaving the site unable to pay its 16 employees for months.^[57]^[6]^[58] To avert shutdown, David Mikkelson launched a GoFundMe campaign on July 24, 2017, seeking $500,000 for operational survival; it raised that amount within 24 hours and exceeded $600,000 shortly thereafter, enabling temporary continuation of fact-checking amid claims that the site's existence was at risk. A California court intervened in late July 2017, ordering Proper Media to release $100,000 in withheld ad revenues to Bardav Inc., though the broader ownership battle persisted with mutual lawsuits alleging breach of contract and financial mismanagement.^[58]^[6]^[58] The dispute extended into 2018, with Snopes regaining full site control by March but facing ongoing litigation over finances; a tentative August 2017 court ruling favored Snopes on interim ownership and revenue access, underscoring the economic vulnerability of its ad-dependent model without diversified reserves. Subsequent pressures emerged in 2021, when Snopes confronted over $4 million in lawsuits from a single former technology vendor, necessitating another public fundraiser that collected $1.7 million to cover legal defense and sustain independence claims.^[59]^[57]^[53] These episodes revealed Snopes' structural financial strains, including heavy reliance on volatile ad revenues routed through external partners and the absence of substantial endowments, which amplified risks from internal disputes and vendor conflicts despite its nonprofit aspirations post-2016.^[6]^[60]

Evaluations of Accuracy and Bias

Empirical Assessments of Factual Reliability

A 2023 data-driven study analyzing over 11,639 Snopes fact-checks from January 2016 to August 2022 found that 28.65% of claims were rated as true or mostly true, a higher proportion than PolitiFact's 10.95%, suggesting Snopes verifies a notable share of accurate claims alongside debunkings.^[9] Among 749 overlapping claims with PolitiFact, 69.6% received identical ratings initially, rising to near-complete concordance (99.6%) after adjustments for differences in granularity, timing, and specificity, with only one true conflict identified.^[9] This high inter-checker agreement supports Snopes' factual consistency, though the study noted potential selection effects, as Snopes' emphasis on affirming truths could reflect editorial priorities rather than inherent inaccuracy.^[9]^[48] Independent media rating organizations have evaluated Snopes' reliability through structured analyses of its content. Ad Fontes Media, using panels of diverse analysts to score articles on veracity, sourcing, and expression, assigned Snopes a reliability score of 44.44 out of 64, classifying it as "Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting."^[61] Media Bias/Fact Check rated Snopes as high for factual reporting, citing proper sourcing and corrections for errors, despite noting left-center bias in story selection.^[62] These assessments, derived from systematic reviews of multiple Snopes articles, indicate strong adherence to evidence-based standards, though they rely on subjective rater judgments calibrated against objective criteria. Snopes has maintained certification from the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which vets signatories for non-partisanship, transparency, and methodology, including accuracy in at least 75% of fact-checks tied to public interest issues.^[63] Recertifications, such as in 2022 following internal reforms, affirm compliance but do not quantify error rates, focusing instead on process adherence.^[63] Empirical evidence of errors remains limited to isolated retractions, like those from the 2015–2019 plagiarism scandal involving co-founder David Mikkelson, which prompted reviews but no widespread accuracy overhaul.^[61] Overall, cross-verification studies and ratings converge on Snopes' high factual reliability, tempered by critiques of selection biases in academic analyses potentially influenced by institutional leanings.^[9]^[62]

Allegations of Political Slant and Selective Coverage

Critics from conservative outlets have accused Snopes of exhibiting a left-wing political slant, arguing that its fact-checking disproportionately targets and rates false claims originating from right-leaning sources while applying more lenient scrutiny to similar assertions from the left.^[64] For example, during the 2021 plagiarism scandal, co-founder David Mikkelson admitted to fabricating a byline for 23 articles that debunked rumors about Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, while aggressively targeting Republican figures like Donald Trump, raising questions about intentional partisan framing in content production.^[64]^[65] Media bias rating organizations have provided mixed assessments supporting these allegations to varying degrees. Ad Fontes Media rated Snopes with a bias score of -2.31 (indicating a slight leftward tilt on a scale from -42 to +42) and noted instances of stronger left bias in specific articles, such as a -9 score for a fact-check on a rumor involving Republican JD Vance.^[61] AllSides has highlighted that fact-checkers like Snopes can demonstrate bias via selective story choice, such as prioritizing claims from one ideological side, which may create an appearance of imbalance even if individual verdicts are accurate.^[66] Allegations of selective coverage center on Snopes' claim selection process, which critics contend favors viral conservative memes and political statements—often rating them false—over equivalent left-leaning falsehoods, potentially reflecting broader institutional tendencies in fact-checking toward left-leaning priorities.^[64]^[66] For instance, conservative commentators have pointed to Snopes' handling of COVID-19-related posts questioning public health narratives as overly dismissive of alternative viewpoints, framing them as denialism without equivalent rigor applied to government statements.^[64] Empirical analyses offer a counterpoint, with a 2023 Harvard Kennedy School study finding Snopes' verdicts aligned closely with other fact-checkers like PolitiFact in 74.2% of overlapping cases, with no systematic evidence of partisan distortion in rating veracity, though it noted Snopes verifies more "true" claims overall (28.65% of checks).^[9] Other research, including a Princeton study on fact-checking patterns, concluded that coverage focuses on prominent politicians regardless of party, not partisan favoritism, though critics argue such studies underweight selection bias influenced by left-leaning media ecosystems.^[67]^[68] Snopes has rebutted bias claims, maintaining that topics are chosen based on reader submissions and public prominence rather than ideology.^[69]

Impact and Criticisms

Achievements in Debunking Hoaxes

Snopes originated in 1994 as a resource for investigating and debunking urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore propagated through early email chains and usenet groups, establishing it as a pioneer in online myth-busting.^[11] By compiling detailed, evidence-based refutations supported by primary sources such as official statements, historical records, and witness accounts, Snopes helped demystify widespread falsehoods that lacked empirical foundation, thereby reducing their viral persistence in pre-social media digital culture.^[14] This foundational work earned recognition, including Webby Awards for its contributions to combating internet folklore.^[70] One notable achievement involved debunking the persistent rumor that "Little Mikey," the child actor from 1970s Life cereal commercials, died from an explosive reaction after consuming Pop Rocks candy mixed with soda. Snopes traced the legend's origins to playground folklore in the late 1970s, confirmed Mikey's survival into adulthood through public records and interviews, and explained the myth's appeal via misattributed fears of carbonation's effects, rating the claim false in a 2000 article that has been referenced in media discussions of enduring urban myths.^[71] Similarly, Snopes documented the 1996 Taco Bell "Liberty Bell" hoax, where the company issued a fake press release claiming to have purchased the historic artifact to reduce the national debt and rename it the "Taco Liberty Bell" as an April Fools' stunt, verifying it as intentional deception through Taco Bell's subsequent admission and analyzing its media coverage.^[72] Snopes has repeatedly addressed recurring hoax warnings, such as claims of criminals using drugged perfume to incapacitate victims for robbery, which it refuted by highlighting the absence of police reports or forensic evidence across alleged incidents dating back decades, often linking them to recycled chain emails.^[73] Other examples include debunking assertions about secret ATM panic codes that purportedly summon police via specific PIN entries—lacking support from banking industry protocols—and myths of planetary alignments causing airline weight reductions, both rated false after cross-verification with aviation and astronomical data.^[74] These efforts demonstrated Snopes' methodology of prioritizing verifiable data over anecdotal reports, contributing to a cultural shift toward skepticism of unproven digital rumors.^[17] In aggregating and archiving thousands of such investigations, Snopes created a comprehensive database that served as a reference for journalists, educators, and the public, with early debunkings of non-political hoaxes like Bigfoot sightings or haunted attractions laying groundwork for broader fact-checking practices.^[75] This pre-political focus allowed for relatively unbiased empirical analysis, as evidenced by the site's sustained traffic—averaging millions of monthly views—and endorsements from outlets crediting it with foundational roles in dispelling folklore.^[76]

Major Controversies and Disputes Over Specific Verdicts

In August 2021, Snopes retracted 60 articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation revealed that co-founder and former CEO David Mikkelson had plagiarized content from other news outlets between 2015 and 2019, including material used to support fact-check verdicts.^[65] Mikkelson was subsequently banned from authoring new content, with Snopes stating the plagiarism undermined the site's trust in those specific rulings, though the overall verdicts were not necessarily altered.^[7] This incident prompted disputes over the reliability of affected fact-checks, such as those on urban legends and viral claims, with critics arguing it exposed systemic vulnerabilities in Snopes' editorial processes despite the site's claims of rigorous verification.^[77] A prominent dispute arose over Snopes' June 2024 fact-check of the claim that former President Donald Trump referred to neo-Nazis and white supremacists as "very fine people" following the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Snopes rated the assertion false, citing Trump's press conference transcript where he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists, stating the "very fine people on both sides" comment excluded those groups and referred instead to non-violent protesters debating statue removal.^[78] Conservatives hailed the verdict as correcting a persistent misrepresentation, but left-leaning critics, including The New Republic, contended it downplayed Trump's broader equivocation between counter-protesters and rally participants, some of whom espoused supremacist views, thereby sanitizing the original context.^[79] The disagreement highlighted tensions over interpretive versus literal fact-checking, with empirical review of the transcript supporting Snopes' narrow conclusion while causal analysis of rally dynamics fueled ongoing partisan debate. Snopes' handling of claims related to the 2019 Covington Catholic High School incident also sparked controversy, particularly its January 2019 rating that resurfaced photos of students in black body paint depicted camouflage for a basketball game theme, not blackface intended as racial mockery.^[80] This verdict aligned with contemporaneous investigations clearing the students of initiating racial taunts, yet drew pushback from outlets and activists who viewed it as overly credulous toward the students' explanations amid broader media portrayals of them as aggressors.^[81] Subsequent lawsuits settled by media entities against student Nick Sandmann underscored evidentiary support for Snopes' assessment, but disputes persisted over whether the site's focus on verifiable intent neglected the symbolic optics of MAGA attire in a charged setting.^[82]

References

[1]
David Mikkelson, Author at Snopes.com
The definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.
[2]
Snopes | CredCatalog - Credibility Coalition
It's the oldest and largest fact-checking site online, widely regarded by journalists, folklorists, and readers as an invaluable research companion.Missing: history | Show results with:history<|separator|>
[3]
Fact Check Ratings | Snopes.com
Every fact check on Snopes.com is rated in order to help readers quickly ascertain the credibility of a claim.
[4]
Snopes: How do you survive 25 years debunking fake news? - BBC
Sep 23, 2019 · David Mikkelson, the co-founder of Snopes, says: "People come to ... Snopes pulled out of a fact-checking partnership with Facebook earlier this ...
[5]
IFCN Code of Principles @Poynter
Snopes has no commercial, financial, or institutional relationship with any state agency, political party, politicians, or political candidates. Snopes does not ...
[6]
Who's The True Boss Of Snopes? Legal Fight Puts Fact-Check Site ...
Jul 26, 2017 · Ownership of the site is the focus of a sharply contested legal battle between its founder, David Mikkelson, and a small digital outfit called Proper Media.
[7]
Snopes Retracts 60 Articles Plagiarized by Co-Founder
Aug 13, 2021 · The fact-checking site has banned David Mikkelson, who owns half the company, from writing articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[8]
Snopes Co-Owners Acquire All Remaining Shares of the Company ...
Sep 23, 2022 · Snopes Co-Owners Acquire All Remaining Shares of the Company, Bringing Total Stake to 100%. Snopes Media Group. September 23, 2022 2 min read.
[9]
“Fact-checking” fact checkers: A data-driven approach
Oct 26, 2023 · This study examined four fact checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact, Logically, and the Australian Associated Press FactCheck) using a data-driven approach.
[10]
David & Barbara Mikkelson Found Urban Legends Reference ...
In 1994 David and Barbara Mikkelson created Urban Legends Reference Pages, an urban folklore website that was later renamed Snopes.com.Missing: founding origins
[11]
About Us | Snopes.com
About Us. When misinformation obscures the truth and readers don't know what to trust, Snopes' fact-checking and original investigative reporting lights the ...Fact Check Ratings · Transparency · Our Team
[12]
Is that news story fake?
Mikkelson's roots with Snopes involve the collision of early folklore/urban legend newsgroups and the International Society for Contemporary Legend Research.Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[13]
Snopes.com - FactCheck.org
Apr 10, 2009 · Q: Is Snopes.com run by “very Democratic” proprietors? Did they lie to discredit a State Farm insurance agent who attacked Obama?<|separator|>
[14]
Snopes.com: Debunking Myths in Cyberspace - NPR
Aug 27, 2005 · Reporter Doug Fine talks to David Mikkelson, the co-founder of Snopes.com, a Web site dedicated to busting urban legends.
[15]
Snopes.com and the Search for Facts in a Post-Fact World | WIRED
Sep 20, 2017 · David Mikkelson has been debunking myths on Snopes.com for more than 20 years. “It's kind of like the site is my baby,” he says. Holly Andres.
[16]
This is where fake news goes to die | CNN
Mar 10, 2017 · David Mikkelson started Snopes in 1994 as a way to debunk urban legends and Internet myths. It's now busier than ever. Melissa Lyttle for CNN ...
[17]
Snopes Debunked the World. Then the World Changed. - GEN
Feb 10, 2021 · Snopes was built around the idea that debunking myths could be both fun and empowering, without understanding what bad-faith actors have long ...
[18]
Can mythbusters like Snopes.com keep up in a post-truth era?
Aug 1, 2016 · “There are more and more people piling on to the internet and the number of entities pumping out material keeps growing,” says Mikkelson, who ...
[19]
Project Veritas' Election 2016 'Rigging' Videos | Snopes.com
Oct 18, 2016 · James O'Keefe's Project Veritas released four 2016 election-related videos supposedly depicting rampant election fraud and misconduct on the part of Democrats.
[20]
For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More ...
Dec 25, 2016 · The founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, has a longer rap sheet than Al Capone. He was supposedly arrested for committing fraud and corruption and running a pit ...
[21]
The Coronavirus Collection: Fact-Checking COVID-19 | Snopes.com
An infodemic of rumors and misinformation. You can find a compilation of claims we've fact-checked so far, separated by category, below.Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[22]
Did the US Develop an Implantable COVID-Detecting Microchip?
Apr 15, 2021 · The technology is not a microchip, nor was it developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor can it pinpoint what virus or bacteria has infected the body.
[23]
Years-Old List of Alleged Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine 'Side Effects' Is ...
Jan 17, 2025 · Snopes has collected a series of COVID-19 fact checks of claims from the "infodemic" that accompanied the pandemic in 2020. Sources. Center ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[24]
Snopes on COVID-19 Fact-Checking
Mar 20, 2020 · The coronavirus pandemic exposes just how under-resourced we have let the fact-checking industry become.Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
[25]
The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a COVID ...
Jul 16, 2021 · Proponents of the "COVID lab leak" theory that COVID-19 originated as a result of work performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology keep repeating the same ...
[26]
COVID-19: Why the Lab Leak Theory Should Be Formally Investigated
Jun 2, 2021 · We don't know how the virus arrived in Wuhan, how its sequence evolved to allow human infection, and under what conditions it infected the ...
[27]
Did COVID-19 Originate in Market 400 Meters From CCP Lab ...
Mar 29, 2021 · Claim: A "CCP lab studying coronaviruses derived from bats" is located 400 meters away from the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, China, that saw ...
[28]
DOE and FBI Say Lab Origin of COVID Is 'Most Likely' - Snopes
Mar 3, 2023 · Scientific evidence points to a natural origin. The FBI and DOE, we now know, disagree with that view.Missing: rating history
[29]
Trump Didn't Say People Should 'Inject Bleach' To Tackle COVID-19 ...
Aug 23, 2024 · Former US President Donald Trump once suggested people inject bleach or other disinfectants into their bodies to treat COVID-19.
[30]
No, 95% of Omicron Cases Are Not in Vaccinated People - Snopes
Jan 5, 2022 · Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines.
[31]
Pandemic Articles - Snopes.com
RFK Jr. has suggested vaccines caused 1918 Spanish flu pandemic at least twice · Years-Old List of Alleged Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine 'Side Effects' Is Misleading.
[32]
Snopes Tips: Why Care if Research Is 'Peer-Reviewed'?
Mar 30, 2022 · Peer-reviewed articles are those that have gone through a regimented evaluation process by journal editors and other experts in the related field.
[33]
Snopes CEO apologizes for plagiarism - The Columbian
The co-founder and CEO of the fact-checking site Snopes.com has acknowledged plagiarizing from dozens of articles done by mainstream news outlets over ...
[34]
Apology from Members of Snopes Senior Management
Aug 13, 2021 · An internal review prompted by a BuzzFeed investigation found dozens of stories by our co-founder that appropriated material from other news organizations.Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges<|control11|><|separator|>
[35]
Snopes: Employee Directory | ZoomInfo.com
Snopes Employee Directory. Snopes corporate office is located in 2522 N Proctor St 524, Tacoma, Washington, 98406, United States and has 17 employees.
[36]
Our Team | Snopes.com
The definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.Missing: history | Show results with:history
[37]
Snopes-ing 101: the Fact-Checkers' Toolbox
We've started compiling a list of concise how-tos by our reporters and editors for anyone interested in fact-checking and internet research.Missing: internal | Show results with:internal
[38]
How does Snopes decide what to fact-check? We have long turned ...
Apr 1, 2025 · What do you think of snopes.com as a fact checking service? 0 reactions. Profile photo of Paul.
[39]
Prominent fact-checker Snopes apologizes for plagiarism - AP News
Aug 14, 2021 · The co-founder and CEO of the fact-checking site Snopes.com has acknowledged plagiarizing from dozens of articles done by mainstream news outlets over several ...
[40]
The CEO of Fact-Checking Site Snopes Plagiarized Dozens of Articles
Aug 13, 2021 · "There is no excuse for my serious lapses in judgement," Snopes CEO and cofounder David Mikkelson said in a statement. "I am sorry."
[41]
A Note from Snopes Writers About Co-Founder's Plagiarism
Aug 13, 2021 · A BuzzFeed investigation, along with an internal Snopes investigation, has revealed dozens of plagiarized stories by company CEO David ...Missing: scandal | Show results with:scandal<|separator|>
[42]
Snopes Co-Owners Acquire All Remaining Shares of the
Sep 23, 2022 · "We're pleased to announce that as of today, all legal disputes have been amicably resolved and settled," Richmond said. "Business is ...
[43]
Collection: The Most Popular Fact Checks of 2022 - Snopes.com
The year 2022 was pretty monumental at Snopes. We got new management, back-end improvements on our website that helped with page-load times, and a clean, ...Missing: ownership transition
[44]
Disclosures | Snopes.com
Jul 3, 2025 · Richmond and Schoentrup are the only owners. There are no other shareholders or investors. (The information below hasn't been updated since 2022)
[45]
Workers at Snopes announce intent to unionize, form Snopes Guild
Jul 2, 2025 · It underwent a full-throated ownership change in 2022 after a tumultuous legal dispute over the company's ownership. Former Salon owners and ...
[46]
Snopes.com | The definitive fact-checking site and reference source ...
The definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.Fact Checks · Snopes.com · Top Posts · News & Politics
[47]
Fact Checks Archive | Snopes.com
Rumors and questionable claims we have researched recently.Snopes Logo · Snopes True or False Game · Donald Trump · Contact UsMissing: shift 2010s<|separator|>
[48]
True: Fact checkers tend to agree on validity of news claims ...
Dec 18, 2023 · Fact-checking organizations like Snopes and Politifact have generally agreed on the validity of news claims, according to researchers from ...
[49]
Frequently Asked Questions - Snopes
The definitive Internet reference source for researching urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[50]
Transparency | Snopes.com
and because we think being transparent with readers is the coolest — what follows is a detailed ...
[51]
Fact-checking site gets lifeline after donation drive - BBC
Jul 25, 2017 · Snopes claims that its funding stream has been blocked by the agency that controls its online advertising. An open letter posted on the website ...
[52]
Fact-Checking Website Snopes Gets Outpouring Of Financial ...
Jul 25, 2017 · One of the founders of the pioneering fact-checking website Snopes.com has quickly raised over half a million dollars in support of the site.
[53]
Snopes raises over $1.7 million to fight lawsuits - Axios
Jul 27, 2021 · Snopes founder and CEO David Mikkelson says the legal fees account for roughly 20-30% of Snopes' revenues each year. An error has occurred.
[54]
Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
Feb 1, 2019 · In 2017, Snopes received $100,000 from Facebook for participating in the partnership. According to Green, Snopes hadn't been downranking hoaxes ...
[55]
Snopes CEO's Take on Meta Cutting Ties with Fact-Checkers
Jan 10, 2025 · Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Meta (formerly Facebook), has announced he is cutting ties with third-party fact-checkers in favor of a Community Notes ...
[56]
Snopes - RAND
Snopes.com is a website that conducts extensive fact-checking research on popular topics, often chosen based on reader interest.
[57]
Snopes.com prevails in tentative court ruling over finances, ownership
Aug 7, 2017 · The Snopes.com ownership dispute started with the 2015 divorce of Mikkelson and his then-wife Barbara. The couple shared 50-50 ownership over ...
[58]
Snopes, in Heated Legal Battle, Asks Readers for Money to Survive
Jul 24, 2017 · Last week, a court ordered Proper Media, which cannot directly pay Snopes employees, to release $100,000 of the advertising revenues to Bardav, ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
[59]
Snopes has its site back. But the legal battle over its ownership will ...
Mar 20, 2018 · In an update last week, Snopes published a timeline of its alleged legal victories against Proper Media over the past several months. From being ...
[60]
Snopes is locked in a legal battle for control of its website - Poynter
Jul 11, 2017 · The owner of Snopes is locked in a legal battle with a small digital services company for control of the popular debunking site.
[61]
Snopes Bias and Reliability - Ad Fontes Media
Snopes is an independent publication owned by Snopes Media Group. In August 2021 BuzzFeed News reported that David Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes, had written ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
[62]
Snopes - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
Overall, we rate Snopes as Left-Center biased based on news story selection that slightly favors a liberal perspective. We also rate them as High for factual ...
[63]
Snopes.com - IFCN Code of Principles - Poynter
This badge confirms Snopes.com was deemed compliant with the IFCN principles when subjected to the established vetting process and evaluated by external ...
[64]
Fact-checking the fact-checkers: 'Pants on Fire' partisans
Aug 13, 2021 · Snopes.com describes itself as the “definitive fact-checking site,” yet turns out to be a big source of misinformation.
[65]
The Co-Founder Of Snopes Wrote Dozens Of Plagiarized Articles ...
Aug 13, 2021 · A BuzzFeed News investigation has found that between 2015 and 2019, Mikkelson wrote and published dozens of articles containing material plagiarized from news ...
[66]
Fact Check Bias Chart - AllSides
The AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart™ reveals the media bias of top fact checkers, such as Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org and more.
[67]
Fact-checks focus on famous politicians, not partisans
Does the fact-checking enterprise focus its attention on one party? If Republican or Democratic politicians were systematically more likely to have their ...
[68]
Fact-checks focus on famous politicians, not partisans - PMC - NIH
Dec 19, 2024 · We find that Republican elected officials are not fact-checked more often than Democratic officials. Politician prominence predicts fact-checking, but ...
[69]
Is snopes.com biased?
Apr 17, 2015 · Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals? Administration supporters or a secretly-funded tool of the opposition?Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[70]
Read The Webby Awards Exclusive "How The Truth Set Snopes Free"
Oct 19, 2016 · For over 20 years, Webby Winner Snopes.com has debunked just-so tales and urban folklore. In today's age of (dis)information on the Internet ...
[71]
Did Pop Rocks and Soda Kill 'Little Mikey'? | Snopes.com
Jul 31, 2000 · Little Mikey of LIFE cereal fame died from the explosive effects of mixing Pop Rocks candy with soda pop. Rating: False. About this rating.Missing: debunked | Show results with:debunked
[72]
April Fools' Day Pranks | Snopes.com
Feb 29, 2004 · In 1996, Taco Bell Corp. announced it had bought the Liberty Bell from the federal government and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell.Missing: debunked | Show results with:debunked
[73]
No, Criminals Are Not Using Drugged Perfume to Rob People
Jan 20, 2025 · Some examples of shockingly effective copypasta fact-checked by Snopes years ago still pop up in our inbox almost every day. Most instances of ...Missing: successful | Show results with:successful<|separator|>
[74]
5 fake stories that just won't go away - CNN
Mar 10, 2017 · The good folks at Snopes.com, the Internet's oldest and best-known fact checker, know a thing or two about debunking myths.Missing: folklore | Show results with:folklore
[75]
Why Snopes matters - American Press Institute
Jul 25, 2017 · Its cofounder David Mikkelson was an early adopter who “was on the internet before most people were aware there was an internet,” Mikkelson ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
[76]
Snopes: The website that explodes urban myths - The Guardian
Jun 16, 2008 · Not all the stories on Snopes are myths. It's true, for example, that in the early days Coca-Cola contained a tiny amount of cocaine, and that ...
[77]
Banned Snopes co-founder plagiarized dozens of stories
Aug 13, 2021 · ... plagiarized articles by Mikkelson. “Let us be clear: Plagiarism undermines our mission and values, full stop,” Marchionni said in a ...Missing: admission | Show results with:admission
[78]
No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very ...
Jun 20, 2024 · On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, " ...
[79]
Why Is Snopes.com Helping Trump Clean Up “Very Fine People”?
Jun 26, 2024 · Internet fact-checkers at Snopes.com have published a piece declaring it “false” that Trump was referring to neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
[80]
Is This Picture from a Covington Catholic High School Basketball ...
Jan 21, 2019 · In the aftermath of a controversy over a viral video that appeared to show students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky mocking a ...
[81]
Report on Covington High School incident finds no fault with students
Feb 13, 2019 · "We see no evidence that students responded with any offensive or racist statements of their own," the report found, saying they responded by ...
[82]
The Washington Post settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann after viral ...
Jul 24, 2020 · Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School teen at the heart of an encounter last month with a Native American activist, is suing The ...Missing: Snopes | Show results with:Snopes<|control11|><|separator|>