How have ownership changes at Snopes affected its editorial independence and fact‑checking partnerships (e.g., Facebook agreements)?
Executive summary
Snopes’ repeated ownership disputes — a 2017 legal battle with Proper Media, interim shareholder financing, and a 2022 buyout that consolidated ownership under Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup — have been central to debates about its editorial independence and its willingness to participate in platform fact‑checking programs such as Facebook’s; Snopes formally left Facebook’s fact‑checking partnership on February 1, 2019, while financial ties to platforms and advertisers before and during the dispute created both real pressures and perceptions of compromised independence [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows a mixed record: Snopes’ editorial team and transparency pages insist on separation of business and newsroom functions, while contemporaneous staff complaints and external coverage describe friction and distraction from ownership and platform relationships [6] [7] [8] [9].
1. Background: how ownership fractured the newsroom narrative
The conflict began as a business arrangement between founders and Proper Media that escalated into a public legal fight over who controlled Snopes’ parent company, Bardav, leaving the site operating amid lawsuits and managerial uncertainty; newsroom staff and leadership repeatedly described the ownership dispute as an existential distraction that taxed resources and attention [1] [2] [3]. Proper Media’s role in brokering advertising and collecting revenue on behalf of Bardav before the dispute created a commercial entanglement that critics and Snopes’ own leadership said complicated the site’s ability to focus on editorial priorities [2] [1].
2. Money on the table: Facebook payments, crowdfunding and perceived conflicts
Snopes disclosed receiving six‑figure payments from Facebook as part of the platform’s fact‑checking program in multiple years — amounts variously noted as $100,000, $154,000, $406,000 or more across fundraising cycles and partnership periods — and also raised substantial reader funds and shareholder financing, creating a mixed funding model that both enabled operations and opened the door to questions about incentives and perception [5]. Staff and external commentators argued that reliance on platform payments and ad revenue could skew priorities or create the appearance of influence, and at least one editor publicly criticized the Facebook partnership as offering “the appearance of trying to prevent damage without actually doing anything,” alleging that platform dynamics and advertiser relationships pressured editorial choices [8].
3. The Facebook split: exit framed as a defensive move
Snopes publicly withdrew from Facebook’s third‑party fact‑checking program on February 1, 2019, with its leadership telling Poynter that the arrangement had become a distraction while a Facebook spokesperson framed the decision as one Snopes made “as an independent business,” noting Facebook’s continued commitment to working with fact‑checkers [4]. Coverage at the time emphasized that many partner newsrooms found the program’s impact uncertain and that Snopes’ internal ownership fight made participating in Facebook’s workflow especially difficult; subsequent reporting suggested Snopes’ editors felt the partnership sometimes misaligned with their priorities [9] [4] [8].
4. Ownership consolidation and editorial claims after 2019
After years of litigation and management shifts — including David Mikkelson stepping down as CEO in September 2022 and the sale of 100% of the company to shareholders Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup — Snopes publicly presents itself as an independent newsroom with documented editorial processes and a firewall between advertisers and editorial staff, and its transparency pages articulate that separation [3] [6] [7]. Independent analyses of fact‑checking output show Snopes broadly aligned with peer fact‑checkers on conclusions and methodology in many cases, which supporters point to as evidence its editorial standards remained intact through upheaval [10].
5. What the record proves — and what remains unsettled
The factual record in contemporary reporting establishes that ownership turmoil coincided with Snopes leaving Facebook’s program and that platform payments and ad arrangements existed; it also records staff unease and at least one editorial departure tied to the Facebook partnership [4] [5] [8]. What cannot be conclusively proven from the available reporting is the degree to which ownership changes causally altered day‑to‑day editorial judgments or produced systematic bias in Snopes’ fact checks — Snopes’ own transparency claims and external studies provide counterweights, but direct internal documentation tying ownership directives to editorial outcomes is not present in the cited coverage [6] [10]. In short: ownership instability and platform money created legitimate risks to perceived independence and distracted leadership, the Facebook exit was a documented consequence, and after consolidation new owners and outside analysis have argued the newsroom’s standards endured — but the available sources do not provide definitive proof either that editorial independence was permanently compromised or fully restored in every respect [3] [4] [10] [5].