How do Snopes' funding sources and ownership affect its editorial independence?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Snopes’ stated editorial independence rests on a mix of diversified revenue (advertising, reader contributions, memberships) and explicit disclosure rules, while its ownership history and episodic platform funding have created conflicts and perceptions that test that independence; public records show safeguards but also tangible points of leverage (platform payments, ownership disputes) that can influence newsroom choices or public trust [1] [2] [3].
1. Ownership structure: concentrated, recently stabilized, and historically contentious
Snopes Media Group is currently owned by two individuals, Chris Richmond (majority) and Drew Schoentrup (minority), who together acquired full ownership after a long-running legal battle that involved founder David Mikkelson and Proper Media; that concentrated ownership is now presented on Snopes’ disclosures as the only shareholders, which reduces diffusion of control but raises the simple reality that two principals can shape strategic and financial priorities that affect editorial decisions [1] [3] [4].
2. Revenue mix and declared safeguards against editorial influence
Snopes reports primary revenue from advertising, reader subscriptions/donations, and occasional partnerships or grants, and asserts that advertisers and vendors “do not in any way influence the content we publish,” while promising to disclose any single contribution over $10,000 or more than 5% of annual revenue—policies designed to create transparency and a firewall between money and editors [1] [2] [5].
3. Platform funding and crowd campaigns: practical support with reputational risk
Documented past funding includes sizeable one-off amounts—crowdfunded GoFundMe drives and payments from Facebook’s fact-checking program totalling six- and seven-figure sums in various years—which helped keep the site afloat but also exposed Snopes to critiques that platform funding or publicized grants could tilt perception of neutrality or create dependence on a few payers (examples cited on Snopes’ own disclosures and independent summaries) [3] [1] [6].
4. Past ownership disputes and operational interference as a lesson in vulnerability
The 2017–2022 era of legal fights over management and advertising arrangements (Proper Media dispute, Mikkelson’s suspension and later exit) shows how business arrangements around ad management and ownership can threaten editorial operation and continuity; that episode demonstrates that contractual or platform partners with control of ad tech and revenue flows can exert de facto power over a newsroom even if they claim not to influence content [4] [3].
5. External attestations and criticism: credibility gains, partisan attacks, and remaining questions
Third-party validations — independent reviews noting Snopes’ careful sourcing and its previous IFCN affiliation — bolster claims of nonpartisanship and methodological rigor, yet media watchdogs and critics still allege bias (Media Bias/Fact Check flags a left-center slant and documents revenue transparency), and political actors have repeatedly targeted Snopes with accusations about donor influence, illustrating that public trust depends as much on perception as on internal controls [7] [6] [8].
6. Net effect on editorial independence: protections exist but structural risks remain
Taken together, Snopes has explicit policies (disclosures, nonacceptance of political advertising, public owner list) and a revenue model intended to reduce single-source dependence, which supports editorial autonomy in practice; however, concentrated ownership, episodic reliance on platform funds or emergency crowdfunding, and past operational entanglements demonstrate real structural vulnerabilities where financial or contractual leverage could compromise, delay, or shape editorial priorities—risks mitigated but not eliminated by current transparency practices [1] [3] [2].
7. What reporting does not prove and what remains to be watched
Available reporting discloses historic funding amounts, ownership changes, and formal policies, but public sources here do not provide a contemporaneous audit of editorial decisions linked to revenue sources after 2022 or a detailed breakdown of current revenue percentages; absent that granular, up-to-date accounting, claims about absolute independence cannot be fully confirmed or denied from these documents alone [1] [3] [9].