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.
Has Snopes ever been accused of political bias in its fact-checking?
Executive Summary
Snopes has repeatedly been accused of political bias by outlets and commentators across the political spectrum, with specific episodes—such as contested fact-checks about President Biden and correspondence alleging editing changes after external pressure—fueling those claims. Snopes insists on its independence and nonpartisan funding rules, while researchers and critics point to patterns and isolated incidents that raise concerns about perceived or real asymmetries in what gets fact-checked and how verdicts are framed [1] [2] [3].
1. How a handful of contested fact-checks turned into a larger bias narrative
Several high-profile episodes have crystallized accusations that Snopes leans politically. Conservative outlets reported that Snopes initially defended a photo of President Biden wearing a hard hat backward and later revised its stance after backlash, presenting that sequence as evidence of left-wing favoritism and editorial flip-flopping [1]. Separately, reporting that newly disclosed emails show Snopes changed a fact-check rating following pressure alleged to have come from the Biden administration intensified suspicion that the site responds to political influence rather than strict evidentiary standards. These episodes are frequently amplified by partisans who frame them as symptomatic of broader institutional bias, and the combination of editorial revisions plus contested external communications has been central to the narrative used by critics on the right [2].
2. Accusations from the left and right show trust is fractured on all sides
Snopes has not only been accused by conservative outlets; it also faces criticism from progressives when its findings undercut narratives favored by the left. A December 2023 episode in which liberals criticized Snopes for debunking a claim about former President Trump demonstrates that political actors on both sides contest the platform’s neutrality and will pressure for retractions or apologies when outcomes are unfavorable [4]. Academic research further complicates the picture: one 2022 study found asymmetries in which statements get fact-checked—false statements mentioning Democrats were more likely to be fact-checked than those mentioning Republicans—suggesting that selection effects and the political supply of misinformation can drive apparent partisan skew in fact-checking corpora without proving editorial bias at the level of individual organizations [5].
3. Snopes’ stated safeguards and why critics say they are not enough
Snopes publicly asserts it is independent, transparent, and does not accept funding from political parties or political advertising, presenting those policies as safeguards against partisanship [3] [6]. Supporters point to these disclosures as evidence that Snopes structurally resists political influence. Critics counter that formal funding rules do not eliminate editorial judgment or unconscious bias, and they highlight managerial and legal conflicts—such as lawsuits involving ownership and governance—as factors that can affect editorial culture and credibility even if they don’t directly prove partisan intent [7]. In short, procedural independence matters, but it is not dispositive for perceptions of fairness.
4. Evidence, patterns, and the limits of isolated examples
The body of criticism mixes individual contested rulings, alleged email exchanges, academic pattern analysis, and reporting on internal disputes. Each type of evidence carries different weight: isolated fact-check reversals or disputed editorial decisions can be explained by new information or error correction, whereas systematic analyses of selection bias point to broader structural dynamics in how fact-checking ecosystems operate. The most robust claims of bias require showing consistent, measurable divergence from methodological standards across many cases, not just a handful of controversial instances. The 2022 study on selection asymmetries and multiple high-profile disputes both matter, but they point to different causal possibilities—organizational bias versus ecosystem-level dynamics that produce skewed samples for any given fact-checker [5] [2].
5. What the evidence does and does not prove about Snopes’ political neutrality
Taken together, the available reporting and research show that Snopes is a frequent target of bias accusations from across the political spectrum, that specific incidents have amplified those charges, and that Snopes claims formal safeguards designed to preserve independence [1] [2] [3]. The evidence does not incontrovertibly prove a deliberate, institution-wide partisan agenda because countervailing facts—such as instances where Snopes debunked claims harming both sides and its stated funding rules—complicate a simple partisan attribution. The most defensible conclusion is that Snopes operates under contested legitimacy: some of its practices and decisions invite reasonable scrutiny about perceived bias, while proving systematic partisan intent would require broader, replicable empirical evidence beyond the high-profile episodes and the organizational disputes currently cited [5] [7].