Big Bank Fraud

After hearing of the fraud at the mortgage ratings agencies during the Great reccesion I am not shocked in the least. The banks & brokers asked the agencies essentially "What rating do you need?"

Coupled with BofA & Wells Fargo cheats

I bet there is a lot still to be found
 
When I encounter articles or stories which I can't tell is legit or not, I now check one of those news vetting sites (like Snopes).

Watching the a morning news program the past few days, there was a good discussion on the Fake news topic. Mainly, in the past there were 3 major networks that covered the news (CBS, NBC, ABC). When Cronkite spoke, you could pretty much take that to the bank. Now, there are so many outlets (many non-vetted), so viewer/browser beware :(.

I like Snopes (I found Snopes by a smart member here) as that site doesn't deal only with news but other very very important stuff like "Was that worriesome ramen noodles study proven?" :cool:.
 
Last edited:
easysurfer said:
When I encounter articles or stories which I can't tell is legit or not, I now check one of those news vetting sites (like Snopes).

Watching the a morning news program the past few days, there was a good discussion on the Fake news topic. Mainly, in the past there were 3 major networks that covered the news (CBS, NBC, ABC). When Cronkite spoke, you could pretty much take that to the bank. Now, there are so many outlets (many non-vetted), so viewer/browser beware :(.

I like Snopes (I found Snopes by a smart member here) as that site doesn't deal only with news but other very very important stuff like "Was that worriesome ramen noodles study proven?" :cool:.
Click to expand...
I actually did check. Snopes wasn't talking about this story.
 
audreyh1 said:
I actually did check. Snopes wasn't talking about this story.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I was talking about checking Snopes in general as a verification site. But not this story in particular. a

As you are right about this story not in Snopes. I guess either not yet, or not deemed uncertain enough by Snopes for a fact check.
 
Last edited:
I was an ardent Snopes fan until late 2016 when Daily Mail ran this article:

Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online

And here's Forbes' article on fact-checking the fact checkers:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#4a89bb9f227f

"Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function."

omni
 
omni550 said:
I was an ardent Snopes fan until late 2016 when Daily Mail ran this article ....
Click to expand...

I've read that Daily Mail isn't regarded as a credible source.

I did have a chance to use Snopes the other day as one Facebook (FB) friend of mine posted a conspiracy theory of a current news event (which shall remain nameless to avoid bacon). Usually, this friend is right on target. Then, another FB friend posted something totally opposite about the news event. I like both friends and wasn't going to pit one against the other. So, went to Snopes and saw was they said.

I wouldn't follow Snopes 100% unquestioned. But better, IMO, then going blind as to what is fake or not.
 
Fact checking sites are valuable, but they emphasize statements made by our elected officials. A story such as the one in the OP is deemed legitimate based on the credibility of the sources of the information, scrutiny of the facts by non-interested parties (such as other media), and straightforward identification and attribution of the facts.

There are two links to the story, the first by tekward and the second by audreyh1. There's lots of detail and sufficient fact (data, names, dates) to challenge the story on merits, or verify and accept the version presented. Folks here at E-R Forum are second to none when it comes to challenging bad data or analysis, so I have no doubt any unsupportable conclusions will be called out, not based on bland accusations, but merits, and supported.
 
timo2 said:
It's good to check a few fact check sites. Here is a list of some
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/
Click to expand...

I've become less of a fan of the "fact check" sites. Not long ago, I found pretty much contrary conclusions for something I was researching from a number of high profile "fact check" sites. Facts don't work that way. If they are fact checking facts, they should come up with the same result.

It's too easy to pick out this part or that part, and focus on whether it is true or not, or cleverly insert non-obvious bias. An extreme/silly case to illustrate - "A man is murdered while enjoying a spaghetti dinner at his favorite restaurant" - FALSE, (it was rigatoni). But of course, they do that in subtle ways that many will miss.

I think Snopes was pretty good for the average mass email alerts, but I wouldn't trust them for serious stuff.

Anymore, when I hear something that I think I need to know about, I try to track down the source info itself. I've been shocked how the media presents something I just saw live or video with no editing or commentary, and the media spins it completly different from what I saw (and/or takes a snippet or out of context). But those who didn't see the source come away with a different picture.

I tell people, don't even think about any hot-button-type news you hear unless you have time to track down the source. You can't trust any media these days.

-ERD50
 
MichaelB said:
Fact checking sites are valuable, but they emphasize statements made by our elected officials. A story such as the one in the OP is deemed legitimate based on the credibility of the sources of the information, scrutiny of the facts by non-interested parties (such as other media), and straightforward identification and attribution of the facts.

There are two links to the story, the first by tekward and the second by audreyh1. There's lots of detail and sufficient fact (data, names, dates) to challenge the story on merits, or verify and accept the version presented. Folks here at E-R Forum are second to none when it comes to challenging bad data or analysis, so I have no doubt any unsupportable conclusions will be called out, not based on bland accusations, but merits, and supported.
Click to expand...
I found about 3 new sources online that I knew by name showing the story today. They all referenced the original reporter at The Nation. I linked the Bloomberg article, because they are a serious business news company, and I don't think they would have referenced the story and the author if they did not consider it legit. They also added some of their own comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JoeWras
WSJ: banks are finally facing pressure to pay more
Replies
21
Views
2K
aja8888
aja8888
O
Medicare fraud whistleblower's story
Replies
7
Views
1K
omni550
O
audreyh1
Where were you in September 2008?
4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
15K
TDub
TDub
wingfooted
End of the Beginning - Year 2 of 'Three More Years'
Replies
12
Views
3K
pb4uski
pb4uski
imoldernu
The Pension Problem
2 3
Replies
60
Views
7K
BLS53
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom