Satire Site 'The Babylon Bee' Considering Legal Action Against Snopes
Sometimes the truth seems more satirical than satire. Sometimes satire hits far too close to home. In fact, on more than one occasion, we've joked "Not The Onion" when sharing a story to Facebook. But a satire site like The Babylon Bee is still a satire site, even if you're tricked into thinking it's real. Being tricked by a satire site just proves my opening point. But to Snopes, satire sites like Babylon Bee might need to be taken down a peg. As you've probably heard, Snopes fact-checked one of their stories, but because Snopes is employed to determine real vs. fake news on platforms like Facebook, the action has serious ramifications. The Babylon Bee isn't taking this lying down and issued the following:
Last week, Snopes fact-checked us again. We're pretty used to that. But this time, instead of merely rating the article "false," they questioned whether our work qualifies as satire, and even went so far as to suggest that we were deliberately deceiving our readers. Basically, they treated us as a source of intentionally misleading fake news, rather than as the legitimate, well-known satire publication that we are. This is a big deal.
Doubtful any Louder with Crowder readers will poo-poo this. But for any errant leftist here to hate peck in all caps, let me spell it out for you: far too many people look at Snopes as an honest, fact-checking website with nary a bias. We've personally seen Snopes engage in the exact opposite. They're a bunch of leftists in Che Guevara rompers, skipping through fields of gender-non-conforming daisies. That's a joke, Snopes. Shove it up your back hole. So Snopes saying "Babylon Bee is fake news" may eventually lead to its deplatforming, costing the Bee a crap ton of revenue.
We came out on top last time, but this latest smear from Snopes is both dishonest and disconcerting. We have no choice but to take it very seriously. For better or worse, the media, the public, and social networks all look to Snopes for authoritative answers. By lumping us in with fake news and questioning whether we really qualify as satire, Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us. While we wish it wasn't necessary, we have retained a law firm to represent us in this matter.
Ah lawyers. They're the butts of many jokes, but great to have on one's side. I applaud lawyering up. It's something more people should do in a quick, orderly fashion. When one detects one might be put in a position of bending over to expose one's anal cavity to activities one didn't consent to engaging, one is best served hiring a legal pitbull to engage in some serious legal f*ckuppery.
Legal teams to engage the opposition. We're fans.
Perhaps suffering from a little unintended panty soiling, Snopes issued an editor's note on the "fact-checking" piece in question. You tell me if you detect the faint smell of wee-wee:
Editors’ Note: Some readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee in its original satirical piece about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, and that was not the editors’ aim. To address any confusion, we have revised some of the wording mostly for tone and clarity. We are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire”.
I love it, Snopes is blaming their stupid readers for being too stupid to understand Snopes' fact-checking of a satirical website and labeling it false. Not "Oh, crap, we might get sued, retreat!" but "Oh crap, we might get sued... INSULT THE CUSTOMER-BASE!"
Solid plan, guys. Solid.
How this will all shake out is obviously yet to be seen. But whatever makes Snopes run scared has my vote.