The internet fact-checking website Snopes reversed its earlier ruling regarding President Joe Biden wearing a hardhat backward in a rare correction. Conservatives have long argued that the site, as well as others claiming to seek accurate information in the media have long shown a bias in favor of Democrats.
Snopes initially rated the claim that Biden wore a hardhat backward during a Wisconsin campaign stop was false. The president was photographed with workers and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-WI) wearing the hat.
The photo gained a lot of attention on social media, although likely not for the reason Biden sought.
Snopes fact-check: "Biden wore a hard hat backwards" is misinformation
Who are you going to believe:
Snopes or your lying eyes? pic.twitter.com/p30Qu0uWlY
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 27, 2024
Originally, Snopes wrote on their site that it looked “at first glance, like Biden was wearing that hard hat backwards.” However, the site also wrote that “after comparing it to other photos and videos of the same event, we were forced to reach the opposite conclusion: The hat on Biden’s head was facing forward, bill to the front, not backward.”
This was followed by a flurry of criticism on social media. However, following the feedback, the site changed its ruling. “Therefore, it’s argued, it’s actually true that, in the photo op discussed below, Biden was wearing it backwards. The strap and tightening knob, which should have been behind Biden’s head, were on his forehead,” the site read.
The criticism of the president for wearing the safety device backward also came after a number of campaign stops where Biden appeared to run his words together.
A 2022 Heritage Foundation survey found that Snopes and other self-declared fact-checking sites have shown considerable left-wing bias.
The report cited headlines from CNN’s fact-checking division, which the Heritage Foundation argued were biased against Republicans. Furthermore, the study cited CNN’s Daniel Dale of using information to allegedly manipulate public opinion.
One example was Dale’s citation of Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) arguing that a Biden administration bill included wasteful spending. The information from the bill appeared to back Scott’s statement and not Dale’s.
“Obfuscation and confusion are part of the playbook. Another major part of the playbook is attacking commentary with more commentary,” read the report, citing another example.