Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have any independent studies evaluated Snopes' accuracy and bias?
Executive Summary
A 2023, data-driven review found high agreement between Snopes and other major fact-checkers, especially PolitiFact, across hundreds of matched claims, which supports Snopes’ general accuracy in verdicts [1] [2]. Independent evaluators that assess stance or presentation—such as Ad Fontes and AllSides—place Snopes in a centrist-to-moderate bias band while rating its factual reliability as generally solid, but these measures examine framing not raw claim-veracity, so they complement rather than replace accuracy studies [3] [4]. The evidence shows consistency in verdicts and documented editorial practices, yet critics continue to question selection and emphasis choices.
1. Why the 2023 cross-check matters: broad agreement, narrow disputes
A systematic analysis published in 2023 compared fact-checks from four organizations and concluded there was a strong concordance between Snopes and PolitiFact: among hundreds of overlapping claims, only a single substantive conflicting verdict was identified after reconciling rating schemes [1] [2]. This study covered fact-checks from January 2016 through August 2022 and found reliability of verdicts held steady across high-volume events like the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. elections, suggesting that Snopes’ determinations align with peer institutions on core factual judgments, not merely on ancillary interpretation [1].
2. Ratings vs. veracity: what bias-score services actually measure
Organizations that assign bias or reliability scores—such as Ad Fontes and AllSides—offer useful but limited lenses: Ad Fontes scores Snopes as having a Middle bias and a relatively high reliability mark, while AllSides emphasizes perspective rather than factual correctness, warning that their tools measure story choice and interpretation more than strict accuracy [3] [4]. These ratings are valuable for understanding how a site frames and selects stories, but they do not substitute for the cross-check methodology used to test claim-level accuracy, so contextualize bias ratings alongside verdict-agreement studies [3] [4].
3. Inside Snopes: documented editorial safeguards and methods
Snopes describes an editorial workflow where a staffer researches a claim, drafts a fact-check, and the entry passes through at least one editor, with efforts to contact claim sources and experts for verification—procedures that are consistent with mainstream fact-checking best practices [5] [6]. The site’s transparency page details attempts to reach original sources and reliance on primary documentation, indicating an institutional commitment to evidentiary sourcing; these published methods help explain why Snopes’ verdicts often align with peer fact-checkers in independent analyses [6] [5].
4. Where disagreements appear: selection, framing, and minor rating differences
The 2023 study’s reconciliation of rating scales revealed that most conflicts between outlets are procedural or semantic rather than outright factual contradictions, meaning disagreements often stem from differing rating rubrics or emphases rather than opposite truth claims [1]. Critics who allege pervasive Snopes bias tend to point to story selection or interpretive language; such critiques matter because selection and narrative framing influence public perception, but they do not necessarily demonstrate systematic inaccuracy in claim verdicts [7] [4].
5. What independent evidence still lacks: more real-time, replicated audits
Despite the 2023 cross-check’s strengths, the field would benefit from more frequent, independent replications covering post-2022 fact-checking activity and using standardized, open rating harmonizations so that minor rubric differences are not mistaken for substantive disagreement [1]. Existing studies show consistent verdicts across major organizations, yet the scarcity of continuous, multi-source audits means questions about selection effects and evolving editorial choices remain partly unanswered, underscoring the need for ongoing transparency and external evaluation [1].
6. Bottom line for users: use verdict concordance and methodology together
For practical evaluation, combine evidence of claim-level concordance (the 2023 multi-organization study) with assessments of editorial methods and bias metrics: concordance supports Snopes’ factual reliability, while bias/reliability tools and Snopes’ own transparency pages explain how and why decisions are made [1] [3] [6]. Consumers should treat both verdict-alignment studies and framing ratings as complementary: one tests whether claims are judged the same, the other reveals how story choices and presentation might shape reader takeaways, so both matter when judging a fact-checker’s trustworthiness [1] [4].