Is It Really True? The 5 Best Fact-Checking Websites
Pinterest Whatsapp

fact checking web sitesFact checking has its origin in the early 20th century, when magazines began to verify statements made in non-fictional texts prior to publication. This practice increases credibility and trustworthiness of articles and documents. Today, fact checking is often associated with political journalism, but can of course be used in any field, including your homework.

Using the following fact checking websites, you can verify factual assertions made in your own writings.

Google & Other Search Engines

Google can find the truth. However, it takes a critical eye to distinguish truth from fiction, especially when digging through hundreds of search engine results. Nevertheless, a search engine is a good start. When you are checking facts for your homework, try Google Scholar to find scholarly literature or Google Books.

fact checking web sites

If you need something to use for school, also have a look at this article – Where To Research Material For Your Homework Where To Research Material For Your Homework Where To Research Material For Your Homework Read More


Snopes is the best place to make sure you didn’t fall for an urban legend, folklore, myth, rumor, or other misinformation spread online. Snopes knows coke will not dissolve your teeth, there is no law in Arizona specifically forbidding camel-hunting, the Great Wall of China is not the only man-made object visible from the moon, and much more.

It is worth noting that Snopes lists its sources at the end of every article. You can search the site with a few keywords and switch to advanced search if the results are not exactly what you are looking for.

fact checking websites

We have previously profiled Snopes for the MakeUseOf Directory.

Similar websites can be found in these articles:

When talking about checking facts, the political arena is hard to exclude. One of the online fact checking authorities in this field is, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception in U.S. politics.” In other words, this should be your number one source for information in the 2012 US elections.

fact checking websites

While we try to stay out of political debates, we have previously written about similar websites:


WhoWhatWhen is a database that contains information about famous people and famous events. The data can be assembled in various ways to create graphic timelines of periods in history or of the lives of individuals. For example the screenshot below shows the timeline for the life of the composer Johann Sebastian Bach.

Using the world of drop-down menus, contemporary events from different categories can be added. This reveals that Bach was alive when the first elevator was installed.

fact checking websites

WhoWhatWhen also contains some interesting lists, for example alive & kicking, a list of the oldest still living celebrities, presently headed by actor Ernest Borgnine (95).


Finally, a great place to quickly check basic facts, such as the meaning of words, medical information, or overview articles, is an encyclopedia. One of the best free sources is that of Merriam-Webster.

fact checking web sites

We have previously reviewed Merriam-Webster here: Merriam Webster – An Excellent Free Dictionary For Offline Use [Android 1.6+] Merriam Webster: An Excellent Free Dictionary for Offline Use Merriam Webster: An Excellent Free Dictionary for Offline Use Our phones contain all sorts of useful apps, and one of the best reference tools you can have is a dictionary. Here's why Webster's app deserves a spot on your device. Read More

Also see these articles for more interesting dictionaries:

Which resources do you use to check your facts?

Image credit: Thumbs Up and Down via Shutterstock

Enjoyed this article? Stay informed by joining our newsletter!

Enter your Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Kat
    June 21, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    snopes and politifacts lean left with their political fact checking. they've both been caught in a number of lies over the past couple of years. least reliable for politics!

  2. Kat
    June 21, 2018 at 8:53 pm

    snopes and politifacts have both been caught in lies regarding political fact checking over the course of the past couple years.

  3. Steve
    June 19, 2018 at 7:55 pm

    Sites like snopes that used to be reliable are not anymore. They've become obvious targets for big power manipulators and have been boughten and abused. A little truth with their propaganda is their agenda. These sites use loaded words to indicate their bias then ignore other facts completely that do not support them. Sorry this is a bunch of BS, today's media has no accountablilty. Get your info from many sources is your only chance.

  4. Vincent
    March 19, 2017 at 7:28 am

    My god, what is up with the people not trusting Snopes, literally the most trust-worthy website? I'm sorry if the truth, to you, seems to have a "left bias", but Snopes legitimately writes nothing but the facts down. They only care about facts.
    Wow, people are just dumb.

    • Tina Sieber
      March 19, 2017 at 1:02 pm

      I'm pretty sure Snopes is not without fail, either, but I agree with your general sentiment that it's trustworthy and dependable. Thank you for your comment, Vincent!

      • Vincent
        March 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm

        Yeah, Snopes does slip up from time to time, but they're usually quick to remedy their problems.
        If you ever feel the need to update this article, I recommend this site '' According to it, Snopes is High in factual reporting, but Politifact is apparently higher than them, with their factual reporting being Very High.

        • Tina Sieber
          March 20, 2017 at 9:24 am

          Thank you for that resource, Vincent!

  5. p-r
    February 4, 2017 at 8:38 am

    This article is dated April 2012, 5 years old? WTF

    • Tina Sieber
      February 4, 2017 at 5:05 pm

      What's the problem?

  6. Bill
    December 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    You lost me when you listed Google and Snopes at the top of the article.

    • Tina Sieber
      December 24, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Where do you go to check your facts?

    • Vincent
      March 19, 2017 at 7:25 am

      Snopes is /literally/ just a fact-checking website; they report nothing but facts, what is the problem??

  7. Sharon Bolling
    November 2, 2016 at 5:16 am

    I find Snopes and TruthOrFiction both prefer incorrect liberal answers rather than truth that proves conservative opinions.

    • Tina Sieber
      November 2, 2016 at 8:30 am

      And you know it's true because it's conservative, right?

      • SissyTheClown
        November 6, 2016 at 10:55 am

        Not JUST because it's conservative. Conservative sites tend to print the truth as is, rather than "spinning" half truths, outright lies, or completely ignoring the news - like the WikiLeaks publication of Clinton server emails, that Russia had nothing to do with exposing her cabal, etc., etc., etc., that the NYPD was the first organization to examine Weiner's laptop where they found the 650,000 emails belonging to Hillary Clinton. Last week alone, 95% of the news related to smearing Trump instead of the tremendous amount of damage Hillary's carelessness exposed our nation's security to hackers, and YES, here server was hacked by at least FIVE foreign governments - according to leaks from within our own Intelligence community. You hear nothing of that information from the mainstream media, do you???

        • Tina Sieber
          November 7, 2016 at 9:37 am

          I do. But I'm not consuming conservative news.

        • Jan
          December 15, 2016 at 1:19 pm

          Really? I've watched Fox and other network news and find Fox leave a lot out of their coverage when it doesn't fit with the conservative agenda. The Benghazi investigations are an example of that. The excessive investigations came up with nothing but did you hear that on Fox each time? Never. I saw the speech Michele Obama made at a graduation ceremony where she made the comment about slaves building the White House. Fox didn't show the entire speech, just the part that made her look racist and ungrateful. You can all look up the entire speech and see for yourselves. So, when you talk about liberal media - look into Fox - the report, you decide?

  8. Shiloh
    August 6, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Time to reevaluate. I have found Snopes not to be unbiased when the question is about politics. I research a lot. I want TRUTH, whether I like what it is or not. I think that today most people "think" with their emotions, slogans, and well put words.

    • BobN
      August 15, 2016 at 12:21 am

      I believe it has always been that we make decisions based on our emotions more than facts and logic. I also believe that a reasonable, fair person will read the truth, and accept it whether they like it or not, and not propagate lies to cover up something they don't like.

    • Tina Sieber
      August 15, 2016 at 7:45 am

      You're expecting to find the one right answer. I'm not sure that exists. While I disagree with Bob on making decisions based on emotions rather than fact and logic, emotions can't be ignored because we're no machines.

      Emotions create bias and you'll find that anywhere humans are involved.

    • Dust
      September 16, 2016 at 12:12 am

      Most have found that Snopes is reliable and fully documented. They rate true or false on all sides of politics rather well. The only people I ever heard claim bias have done so because they did not like their particular favorite did not check out. This happens regardless of the political bent of the person claiming it since problems have been found on all. If "i" have found it biased maybe better to check "I''s bias. It has repeatedly been found neutral and factual.

  9. 'Gator
    May 23, 2016 at 11:29 am

    Oh, yeah--name-calling is almost certain proof that a person's mind is made up (i.e., closed) on the topic. For those of you, like Carlos, who have canned replies to anything remotely appearing to be a "fact", I'm called "conservative" by my closest friends, those who know me best, 'cause they're also somewhat conservative. In reality, I'll listen to any argument on either side of a topic. Often, my response generally is, "It depends on whose ox if being gored."

    In general, everyone wants to better his or her lot in life, even if they don't know what's better or worse in the long run. (Remember the old proverb: "Be careful what you wish for. You might get your wish.") Ask the Russians. A former fellow programmer (yes, I appreciate hard science; always have; in its pure form, its rules aren't subject to human opinions), a medal-boasting former Russian gymnast, bemoaned the capitalist shift in the former Soviet Union. Why, you might ask? Because under Soviet rule, at least there was order, and criminals were punished. Now, gangsters run things and threaten your life and that of your extended family if you rat 'em out.

    Live a bit longer. (I'm 67.) If your life doesn't suck outright and you get part of all that you want, you'll find yourself growing more conservative. Why? 'Cause the system works for you to a degree that satisfies you.

    P.S.: I have an M.S. in Computer Science, so your generalization doesn't hold water. I reason via the scientific method while still realizing that humans are no good at solving problems with more than two variables. That's the vast majority of problems.

    • Tina Sieber
      May 26, 2016 at 1:37 pm

      Thank you for your comments, Gator!

      We live in a complex world. The most interesting discussions happen between people who disagree with each other -- at least slightly --, but remain open-minded enough to try and understand the other side. It's mental exercise!

      Darwin had a great strategy for keeping his confirmation bias in check: He wrote down any piece of information or argument that seemed to contradict his views or theses and then went on to test or research these points. This helped him build rock solid theses and he was extremely well prepared for discussions with his critics. I would have loved to see Darwin argue with people who believe in intelligent design for example.

  10. 'Gator
    May 23, 2016 at 10:43 am

    "A comment is required...". Really? How 'bout this? I refuse to play games with those who are sure that they're right. (My apologies to Tina and others who know enough to realize that proving something is right can only be done by those who don't have all the facts.) It's only possible to prove that something is wrong. It doesn't make the grade as a theory. Other opinions (AKA "theories") are only right until proven wrong. You know: like "the Earth is flat and the Universe revolves around it".

    People who have all the answers are, in my humble opinion, the ones who cause conflict in our world.

    • Tina Sieber
      May 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      However, people with all the answers are marginally better than those who have given up looking for answers. ;)

    • Barry
      December 15, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      Gator, There are objective truths and they can be proven. 2+2=4. The earth and sun are real and the earth orbits the sun. We're not talking about subatomic particles here (is it energy or is it matter? Hey, both are true!). Logic dictates that you can't prove that something doesn't exist (God or unicorns for instance), but you can prove that it does exist.
      In this dimension of the universe, where we exist, someone said something or someone didn't say it. A historical event happened or it didn't. There are contextual shades of the statement or history that can modify its interpretation, so one needs enough detail to determine the correct meaning. That requires work (research) that most people are unwilling to do. These sites do the work. Everything that I have independently researched from Snopes and Politifact has checked out. They supply references that allow verification. Is it 100% right 100% of the time? I don't know, but it is close enough to check something out before I blast it all over social media. If everyone was at least that diligent, we wouldn't have 2 sets of "facts" which can't both be true.
      As far as news sources, this chart is a good breakdown of the news spectrum. (it's just a generic posting site, not political). If you're getting your news exclusively from the left side or the right side, you are poorly informed.

      • Tina Sieber
        December 18, 2016 at 9:47 am

        Thank you for your balanced comment, Barry. I'm embedding the image you shared below.

  11. jack
    April 28, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Wikipedia especially, snopes factcheck etc and All the fact check sites are Leftist democrat progressive biased crap sites lies

    • Carlos
      May 6, 2016 at 8:42 pm

      Yes because facts, like science, aren't appreciated by modern right-wing conservatives.

      • Shiloh
        August 6, 2016 at 10:57 pm

        Talk about biased!

  12. jakemeyers
    March 7, 2016 at 3:13 am

    There are some real photos of Obama with Black Panthers at a rally. There is a cheesy Photoshop of him with Black Panthers that's satire. Guess whitch photo Snopes used and marked FALSE.

    • jack
      April 28, 2016 at 6:35 pm

      un, so , so what are yu saying ?

    • Ed
      April 4, 2017 at 9:37 am

      how old was the photo u say has Obama in it with the BP? something many younger people might not realize is that when blacks were fighting for equal rights in the beginning they were a part of that. they werent angels, but they tried to help out & educate others of what was going on, & as a result there were a LOT of people that went to their rallys, etc cuz they were all fighting for equality. if u go through ALL of the pictures of people that were at those rallys u might be surprised. when u fight for a cause with someone, even if they go off the rails, u will still stay in contact with them(ask anyone that ever fought in a war. my gradnfather was in WWII & my dad was in Nam & they both kept in contact with people they were in battle with even if they stepped wrong with the law, etc cuz bonds were forged that still exist despite what others think is "right/wrong" at the time cuz things like that tend to change over time-yesterdays enemies r todays allies). so a picture proves no wrongdoing unless it actually contains TRULY incriminating evidence. just BEING somewhere doesnt count(ask the cops when they raid a drug house, not everyone gets jail time cuz not everyone DID something...tho the cops still try to lock everyone up). the point of a fact-checking site isnt to be the end-all-be-all, its to provide a piece of the picture that we r SUPPOSED then take to another site/place to fill in even more detail. so if Snopes leans left here n there & Fox leans right here n there n Politico leans wherever doesnt matter cuz we SHOULD take ALL of that info, contemplate it, mull it over, & THEN come to a decision. unfortunately people r lazy & they want everything handed to them at one place so they can go do other things. people that truly want the truth(which should ALWAYS include Christians, cuz Christ mandated us to find it & Paul further emphasized that we should find it, tell it, support it, & turn from lies as well 1John4:1, 2Tim3:3-5)dont stop there or complain about a site, cuz they r just 1 part of the whole called truth. if u want easy stick to what everyone tells u, but if u want truth u already know its gonna take time n effort to get it. so just strap in, put on ur glasses if u wear them, grab a notebook, & get to work cuz 5mins is NOT long enough to search for the truth. if u want 1-stop-shopping, watch the news & stop complaining. yeah, im a Christian, but knowing how BOTH partys fiendishly use propaganda to further their own ends, generally without thought to the truth, i go to the "fact-finding sites" to try to ascertain the truth of any given story. if ur looking for a conservative or liberal fact-finding site u should just use Breitbart or its liberal equivalent & just go with the lies THEY tell u cuz if u want an " X slanted truth" is just a lie(kinda like an alternative fact). sorry if i sound harsh, but i believe in the truth cuz Jesus was for the truth. without it NO ONE knows where they stand quite literally in fact, & i HATE the blatant lies i keep hearing & seeing lately. the sad thing is that more people believe the lies & prefer them than want the truth & that includes people that claim to be saved Christians when it SHOULD be the opposite. ill stop here before i REALLY blow up, but 1st i want to say, "Thank You" to Ms Sieber for trying to provide a few sites people could use to check facts. its not a "perfect" list, but there is no such thing as a perfect anything in this world. i appreciate u giving those that r starting off on their quest for truth a springboard to dive from. no one started out as a master fact-finder. we all have to start somewhere. i also appreciate ur responses to some of the more agitated responses. i wish our president responded like that more...well period. actually i wish hed not say anything & act like an adult, but thats far afield from THIS. thx again, & i wish us all luck in our efforts to find the truth, & remember: its not really the truth itself that sets u free, its what u DO with that truth unlocks the prison door. God Bless!

      • Tina Sieber
        April 5, 2017 at 2:18 am

        Thank you for sharing your point of view, Ed!

  13. Bob T
    November 24, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    The thought that any website, news outlet or journalist can be completely be "objective" is nonsense. It is virtually impossible for anyone to be unbiased, because all news/fact check organizations are run by people, and all "news" is written by someone with some sort of bias. Who you believe is up to you. I always make sure that I do not look at a story written by a singular news outlet, I check two or three some left leaning and some right leaning and go from there. The fact is that everyone has bias, and if you can look at the writer or the outlet you can usually pretty quickly find out which way they lean. News and facts can be distorted to lead you to the conclusion that the writer wants, it's not a left or right thing it's a human thing.

    • SailonTombo
      March 21, 2016 at 11:30 pm

      With all due respect, "Bob T," you are obviously less than 50 year old. Because here in America, we demanded and expected that the "news" be objective for about 200 years. Long before we had the current 24-hour news cycle with radio, tv and the internet blasting out "news" all day and all night long, we had thousands of media owners who understood their responsibility to a successful Republic. The Reagan deregulated the media, effectively reducing media ownership from 5,000+ to about 6 (that's right, SIX). Clinton finished it off by dispensing of the then 60+ year old Fairness Doctrine that REQUIRED media to "give" an equal amount of time to political candidates, parties, etc. Result - welcome to the wild, wacky and dangerous world of LIES.

  14. Anonymous
    September 1, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    I have noticed that Snopes shows liberal bias by using mostly liberal reports or liberal newspaper reports.

    • Anonymous
      September 1, 2015 at 10:08 pm

      If it's true, and provides factual evidence, does the fact that you perceive the source to be liberal mean that the truth is any less?

      • Mihir Patkar
        September 2, 2015 at 7:08 am

        Well said, Charlie. Well said.

      • Larry.k
        December 1, 2015 at 4:59 pm

        Sometimes a reason is necessary when someone does not want to see the truth, so we get "liberal" attached. It's a right wing thing!

      • herc
        February 17, 2016 at 9:58 pm

        Liberal spin, is liberal. It's like informing people of the story but leaving out the part about 'the cop asked if he was black before george zimmerman said he was black'. Yes, it matters, and yes, it is less true.

        • Charlie
          February 17, 2016 at 10:13 pm

          And what is conservative spin?

    • Laurie Williams
      November 30, 2015 at 6:15 am

      David if their bias seems liberal, could it possibly be that liberals tend to fact check first and most conservatives react first?

    • Becky
      December 9, 2015 at 5:41 am

      Absolutely. Just read an article where some of their liberal postings were debunked. If using snopes, folks should also read the entire article. I have seen instances where it would say false at the top, but some where in the lengthy article they would contradict that.

  15. Anonymous
    July 5, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    I think some should read this article. There is another one on Bush solely from 2012 that has taken the actual count from a governmental database. Bush has taken more vacations than any other President ever. But this is an article that goes into it but not like the other one I found. It lays it out. I think all of this comparing Bush to Obama should be stopped. They are two different individuals and a lot stated about Obama is mere propaganda and many facts quoted are untruths especially if it comes from the GOP...sorry but true. I'm not biased on this because I am a registered Republican.

    • Fred Crist
      May 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Veronica - You are, I believe, are correct in that "W" took more vacations. However, in my understanding, most of his vacations were spent at his ranch, as working vacations. Bush felt that gallivanting all over the world was disrespectful to our war-time troops.....unlike the current occupant! As for your take on the Republicans- I agree. They are a group of spineless, useless, selfish, etc. people. They are afraid of making/taking a stand for the things that made this country the envy of the world! They should be removed from office and some people that really love this country and are willing to make the tough decisions should be in their place!

  16. Jake Kemp
    February 13, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    Both Snopes and Fact Check have a Liberal political bias. Example: They may say in their response, that this company contributed to both Political parties. What they won't say is that they gave 2 million to one party and $2 to the other. #2 They will say that global warming is a fact, but they won't tell you that in the last 100 yrs it has risen only 1.53 degrees, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute #3 They say that Bush had more vacation days than Obama, what the won't tell you is that he spent most of those days at his ranch(remote White Hous) and Obama was staying in 1.5 million dollar a night Hawaii resort rental. Facts are right, but lie by omission.

    • Tina Sieber
      February 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm

      #1: You have a point, theoretically, but I'm sure your own bias would lead you to cite biased examples, like the ones you gave us above.

      #2: You make it sound like an 1.53 °C increase of average global surface temperature (compared to pre-industrial levels) is not significant. And you fail to mention that scientists are seriously worried about crossing the 2°C mark. Right now, it looks like we're headed towards 4°C by mid-century. Climate models for this scenario are rather unsettling.

      #3: How much does the ranch cost to run 365 days a year? Does it matter how politicians spend their vacation, if they pay it out of their own pocket?

      • Anonymous
        July 1, 2015 at 4:50 pm

        great use of known facts in your reply there

      • Anonymous
        July 1, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        and you do know the history of Annenberg Public Policy Center right?

      • Bob T
        November 24, 2015 at 11:50 am

        Your #3 is patently false. Presidents do not pay for their own vacations so it absolutely matters how much they spend on Presidential vacations and where they go. They spend tax payer monies, not their own. More important is money spent on trips, not how many they take.

      • herc
        February 17, 2016 at 10:10 pm

        And you pretend man has any ability to stop it, or that man is that important. go look up the amount that one volcano spews and you will see your entire premise is rediculous on its face... They need to stop placing temperature stations near man made buildings/streets in order to avoid the false statistics for a start... But when checking over the claims made by Dr. Jones, Wang and their associates, Keenan discovered discrepancies that he says couldn't possibly be accidental. So the only logical conclusion is that Jones and his cohorts lied. Keenan's charge stemmed from the fact that the United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.

        The significance of moving a weather recording station, according to Keenan, is that if a station is relocated downwind of a city from being formerly upwind, then the temperatures it records will tend to be higher, as cities generate heat. Conversely if a weather station is relocated near a lake, its overall temperature recordings will tend to be lower than before. Sometimes a move of as little as 100 meters will make a significant difference in the data recorded.

      • herc
        February 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm

        And Tina, they do NOT use their own money... Come on... Do you know how much jets, and protection costs while they tout gun control yet have 15 bodyguards?

    • von Hardenberg
      February 26, 2015 at 5:44 pm

      Climate does change but in how much is caused by human activity is the question. It makes us feel good to recycle, drive electric vehicles that displace the carbon emissions to the power plants and do all sorts of green things, but climate change is 99,8% a natural phenomenon. We can make things locally better or worse, but globally it is out of our control. It can be used as an issue to help establish political control and that is exactly what is happening. The common people must make the sacrifices, but the elite will be as wasteful as their self determined needs dictate.

    • Tina Sieber
      February 26, 2015 at 6:11 pm

      @von Hardenberg: "The common people must make the sacrifices, but the elite will be as wasteful as their self determined needs dictate." Unfortunately, that's true.

      As for the rest of your comment suggesting that man-made climate change isn't real: nonsense.

      • Bob T
        November 24, 2015 at 11:59 am

        How much climate change is attributed to man is still absolutely up for debate. Furthermore, the idea that anyone who challenges the notion as "nonsense" flies in the face of what science is. There are plenty of examples of "scientific consensus" that have later been proven false, and the idea that we can just accept that the scientific debate about the cause of global climate change is over is nonsense.

    • Jim Meyer
      June 1, 2015 at 9:14 pm

      Well, as they say, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Typically, it's the side that's getting caught in a lie that charges the fact-checker with bias. Snopes has debunked their fair share of myths, lies, and distortions from either side of the political aisle and, as the article points out, they always list their sources, so you can check the fact-checker. Can't get much fairer than that! It would be fun to subject your own response to the fact checker. For example, you suggest that Obama spends most of his vacation time at a $1.5 million/night Hawaii resort rental (if there even IS such a thing!) but don't point out the enormous disparity between the number of vacation days taken by Obama (125, as of the August of 2014) and Bush (407, at the same point in his Presidency) nor do you mention that all Presidents, Republican or Democrat, essentially bring the White House with them wherever they go. So if Bush's "ranch" was a "remote White House," so was Obama's residence in Hawaii. And, just so you know, an average global temperature rise of 1.53 degrees is, actually, a very big deal. But the bigger deal is the RATE of rise, which is increasing exponentially. But congratulations on doing some misleading yourself while pretending to complain that Snopes is misleading!

    • Rastmatical
      February 19, 2016 at 4:47 am

      $1.5 million might (let me emphasize "might") be the total net worth of the property they rented in Hawaii, if $1.5m does in fact mean anything at all. You might want to do some fact checking if you think Obama somehow paid $1.5 million a NIGHT, especially considering he only makes $400k per year lol.... "Facts are right, but lie by omission." Nice try Jake! Any shred of integrity your post MAY have had just flew out the window.

      Here's some reading material for you to help clear things up so you stop spreading such nonesense:

    • Dust
      September 16, 2016 at 12:15 am

      Facts have a liberal bias nowadays.

  17. edward
    January 14, 2015 at 12:09 am

    global warming? the Bible said these events would come and intensify leading to the end. pick it up and check it out, remember back then normal people had no idea the progressions that we would make.

  18. Adrienne
    January 7, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    With all due respect, and yes, I know this post is over 2 years old but, when Terry Smith mentioned "Nature vs. Nurture," I don't believe that Tina quite understood the context. "Nature vs Nurture" has nothing to do with the environment, or communing with nature. It is about genetics vs upbringing, as in with adopted or foster children becoming more like their biological parents, or the ones that raised them.

    In regards to the original topic, unfortunately, I seriously doubt that everyone will ever be able to agree on anything...ever. It's just not possible, but I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. If everyone was in agreement on everything, all the time, man, talk about BORING!

    We would be reduced to nothing but small-talk. Person One: "Beautiful weather we're having." Person Two: "Yes, yes it is." Person One: "Looks like the Giants are gonna win the Series again." Person Two: "Yes, yes it sure does." Person One: "Does the sky look green to you?" Person Two: "Well, now that you mention it...."

    However, it would be refreshing to have some honest politicians. Hopefully, ones that do not get driven mad, run off to live in the Everglades, and start terrorizing thoughtless tourists, litterbugs, & shifty Bass fishermen! On second thought, perhaps we do need more Skinks in the world.... :)

    • Tina
      January 7, 2015 at 2:07 pm


      It's been over two years, so I'm not sure what I was thinking back then, but I was clearly responding to the issue of global warming / climate change, which Terry suggested was a lie.

      My intro was a bit lengthy, but in essence, I meant to express that climate change is a complex issue and a vicious circle. We are out of touch with nature (and ourselves), we are no longer self-sufficient, we depend on work to earn money (rather than producing what we need to sustain ourselves), we consume to fill needs, as a society we have become greedy, consuming more than we need, wasting resources left and right, and causing climate change, which of course adds to our stress.

      Climate change is a consequence of human / social development, of industrialization, of unmet human needs (see Maslow or Max-Neef) or greed, and many other things. Living in balance with nature is the solution to the whole dilemma. Instead of solving it by returning to the basics (conservative values and traditions if you want), we potentially make it worse by trusting in technology to solve the issue.

      I understand the implications of nature vs. nurture or genetics vs. social environment / milieu, and I see the political implications. It's not an issue close to my heart, though, so this is not what I responded to.

  19. oldestgenxer
    October 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Snopes is a great site for urban legends and the like, however--
    It seems that there is no TRULY reliable fact-checking site for politics. Despite all the "Facts," most of it is subjective and subject to interpretation. Also, much of it is based on "what if?"; in other words, if this or that policy is put into place, what will happen? Regardless of expert forecasting, there is no way to accurately measure, because this a complex world we live in, and you can't steer from the back seat.
    That being said, I like Newsbusters, because they call out the liberal media on their bias, and people who don't believe there is bias either aren't paying attention, or agree with the bias. The media has always been biased, going back hundreds of years. It is human nature. Only since the 60s did they try to convince us that they were fair and honest--

    • Marty
      December 28, 2014 at 11:10 pm

      Gen xr you seem to think that news busters is accurate but they print the conservative bias as if it where the whole truth. So it seems that ones choice of fact- checker is dependent on ones own political viewpoint.

  20. Buk
    August 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    I don't see politifact. Factcheck has ties to Obama (he chaired the foundation that started it. Can't be trusted. Politicfact like Factcheck says it non partisan, but now seems the lean to the laft as well. Non of these factcheckers are RELIABLE. I used to think Snopes was reliable, but now they just make excuses for Obama. Politifact claims non partisan: but its been uncoverd to be a lie. and as for Factcheck, connections to obama cant be trusted either.

    • Purell
      August 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      Newsbusters: 'Exposing and Combating the Liberal Media Bias'. Sounds extremely impartial to me... Just thought you should know that that shiny gold sticker on their page is only a commemorative decal signifying 25 years of operation, not a symbol of accreditation and certainly not a Pulitzer Prize (read: Politifact)... I do research for a RW organization for a living, but have the presence of mind to distinguish ideology from fact.

      • terry smith
        September 5, 2012 at 2:09 am

        Trouble with your analysis is that the left, unlike the right, makes a sport out of lying. Think Bill Clinton, Margret Mead, "I Rigoberta Menchu", Nature vs Nurture, Global Warming, Gun Control, Feminist Studies, Bi-lingual Education, Lead Paint Crisis, etc....just a few of the frauds perpetrated by the left (or just lefty liars).

        I challenge the lefties out there to come up with a comparable list of lies/frauds perpetrated by the right! I conjecture there is no comparable list!

        So for the record I would believe Newsbusters way before I would trust Factcheck, Politifact or Snopes (which do seem to be liberal.)

        • Tina
          September 5, 2012 at 11:08 pm


          I don't want to make this a political discussion, as I am not interested in Democrats vs. Republicans. I'm European and our political landscape is quite different. I just want to rebut one point you made, which is very personal to me.

          I love nature and I love people. Being a biologist, I have observed that people who do not have a connection to nature tend to be more stressed out. For me taking a walk in the forest, hiking in the mountains, sitting by the water, and simply observing nature does wonders. I know I would get sick if I could not do it.

          Maybe people being out of touch with nature and not having a natural way to calm down and relax, is one thing that causes so much despair and distress in our society. So I am interested in nature because I can clearly see how much the well being of myself and many other people depends on nature. Besides, humans are an integral part of nature in the first place.

          Now when you say that Global Warming is a lie, it makes me very concerned and I wonder what you mean by that. The thing is, climate change is really happening and it most likely will have catastrophic consequences for all of us.

          To me, this is not a political issue, but a human issue. We are all suffering from the consequences of climate change, regardless of nationality, race, religion, or political orientation. The fact is, we are already seeing more and more extreme weather conditions like heavy storms, droughts, flooding, more wildfires etc.

          You cannot deny that people are suffering from extreme weather events. You just have to realize that 1: the increased frequency of these events is a consequence of climate change and that 2: climate change is man made. The independent scientific evidence to support both these points is overwhelming.

          In other words, take what you call Global Warming off of your list. It is neither a liberal issue, nor is it a lie.

        • Gene
          September 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm

          you say global warming , I think it is a way to control food grow to be able to control good by the Elite who are trying to control everything even us humans , look at weather look at chemtrail being sprayed all over the world what not so then look up who is just one Corporation doing the spraying weathermodificationInc. also look up the 5 of more by now HAARP google it , It's crazy and it's a fact I even had a Chemtrail Budget from the site but they took it off and when they did if was removed from my favorites bookmarks, Gore came out with this and has made Billions on it , look it up , and being a biologist why not look into the presevatives in the vaccines and tell us what you think about that nano mercury !

        • Jim Keith
          October 7, 2012 at 12:39 am

          while I understand your heartfelt concern regarding Global Warming [now conveniently changed to the more encompassing Climate Change] debate...I do not see the overwhelming evidence that it is man made and that we can do much, if anything, about it if it is, indeed, occurring. You might want to read anything by your fellow European, Bjorn Lomborg, in this regard. With the poles of Mars melting [ they do not have SUVs or humans way out there], with the sun activity that has been plotted in the past as well as currently, with the garbage in garbage out of climate modeling, the scare tactics fallen for hook line and sinker from the left of those like Al Gore [ I have fact checked myself his "science" and the high courts in England have ruled his movie a political statement ], not to mention all the Climate-gate undermining of the top "scientists" on the side of those that are skeptical of what the Global Warming very concerned crowd is trying to foist on the rest of us who are also intelligent human beings and not about to just be fed a load by those wanting to abscond with our taxes...well, it really has me wondering if you are not left leaning and your insights as to which sites to use being a little biased. I agree with an earlier comment that is highly suspect. I do appreciate the civil tone you have taken and agree with the fact that nature needs be conserved for a more peaceful and brighter world...but not one I want the radical environmentalists to control as they tend to be irrational and wear blinders when it comes to facts. thanks.

        • Tina
          October 8, 2012 at 7:04 am


          Per your definition I may appear more left-wing than right-wing regarding this particular topic. In truth, however, there isn’t a black or white political opinion. Depending on the topic, anyone can be left, right, middle, or completely unconventional and that’s definitely true for me. I call this an open-minded world view.

          Increased solar activity is not responsible for warming on Mars. It can also not be held responsible for the rapid climate change we have been observing on Earth over the past couple of decades.

          The court in the UK also recognized that “the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”

          What we do to the planet is a moral issue. Not only do we contribute to the extinction of species, more importantly, we threaten the well being of our own race: ourselves and our children. I recommend you watch this short video – the most terrifying video you will ever see.

  21. Saintex
    April 24, 2012 at 9:39 am is pretty interesting when it comes to fact checking and news discussion. they just launched but their features are promising - you can vote fact or fiction on articles, discuss, comment, and support or oppose publishers..

  22. Cryptic
    April 23, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Only people on the right would have the argument that a fact isn't a fact....

    • tony
      July 11, 2012 at 8:23 pm

      Cryptic...your bias is showing! This goes both ways, always. How about we are all Americans?

      • Tina
        July 11, 2012 at 10:16 pm


        The problem with your suggestion is that we are not all Americans. :)

        • Merle Dilley
          August 13, 2012 at 8:29 pm

 didn't mention! Whassup wit
          dat? :o))

        • Tina
          August 14, 2012 at 6:23 am

          Thanks for mentioning it, Merle! I guess the site design was too 90s and looked spammy, so I didn't investigate further.

  23. Tom
    April 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    The problem that I have with Snopes and Factcheck is that most Rightwingers refuse to believe them because so many false emails are flying around that these two resources expose them as false. Then the RWs tell me that the two sites are biased and unreliable.
    When I ask for their reliable sources, I get ...................

  24. Dan
    April 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I have to agree with Mark on this here.... Snopes, at one point in time near its start, may have been legit, but anymore it's just like 'any other site on the web: questionable'. (I can make a post that has a 100 sources but it still won't make it any more credible if all the sources are in fact flawed) And the same thing about It has been proven wrong before...

    Merriam Webster is fantastic....

    • Tina
      April 18, 2012 at 6:48 pm

      Encyclopedias have been proven wrong before.

      Sources need to be picked based on the context, which is why I offered a selection. Urban myths or their refutation are rarely published in scientific literature or encyclopedias. They are much more likely to be the subjects of trivial publications or websites, such as Snopes.

      • Dan
        April 18, 2012 at 11:03 pm

        Very true, and a great insight on how to get that information.

        (*it is a great post btw)


        • Tina
          April 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm

          Thanks Daniel!

    • lloyd
      March 23, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      haha you right wing trolls spout so much shit that any fact checking site is incapablre of getting to the bottom of all the crap you produce

    • Victoria
      September 3, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      May I ask what evidence are you siting to conclude that Snopes is unreliable?

  25. Mark Close
    April 18, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Snopes? LOL

    Sure .. If you want the liberal truth .. It's a Great 'Fact' checker!

    We are talking about 'Fact' checkers .. aren't we?
    Try again.

    • Tina
      April 18, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      It all depends on the type of 'fact' to be checked and who is checking it. Depending on the context, Snopes is great. I wouldn't use it for a scientific article, but it's perfect for checking the common sense (or rather nonsense) behind an urban myth. What do you think would be a better resource?

  26. Chris
    April 18, 2012 at 12:08 am

    Wolfram Alpha is great for a summary of facts.

    • Tina
      April 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      Good one Chris!

  27. Dave Parrack
    April 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Snopes is awesome, and it seems to have been around for as long as I have on the Web.

    • von Hardenberg
      February 26, 2015 at 4:55 pm

      Leans perceptively to the left.

      • Ron Wallace
        November 20, 2016 at 2:24 am

        Then we can assume that facts have a left wing bias.

    • Vinny Verducci
      March 18, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      von Hardenberg, snopes only appears to lean to the left because of your bias. The Mikkelsons are about as apolitical as you can get. Barbara is a Canadian citizen who can't vote in this country and David was registered Republican who voted for Reagan and is now unaffiliated with a political party.

      March 23, 2015 at 12:02 am

      I am with von Hardenberg, snopes is lacking in all the facts most of the time