My problem with fact checkers is twofold:
- they might be high in factual reporting, yet biased. How so? If it reports 100% accurate facts, but only one-sided (i.e., omitting facts that would support the other side), it is biased by definition. This is a general comment, not specifically aimed at Snopes.
- the facts might be there, even on both side, but it is interpretation of those facts, and ultimately labeling them as true of false, that is subject to bias.
For instance, in the uranium case, Snopes crucial argument is that Clinton did not have a veto power, being just one of nine deciding members. Anyone who knows anything about influencing others knows that influence has many forms besides formal power. Even the order in which the nine members speak has impact. Many committee decisions are pre-determined in private consultations prior to an official meeting, so direct physical presence is not needed.
The fact that the $133 million contributor sold his shares in the company means little in the light of the fact that the next biggest contributor, and related directly to the uranium deal, is his closest and long-time friend. Again, most influence is not done formally. Spending $133 million for charities, directly linked to such influential players like the Clintons, is highly suspicious, to say the least. Giving it to the Red Cross or similar is one thing, giving it to the Clintons quite different.
None of what I said above proves the Clintons did something wrong. But it also does not support the "false" label by Snopes.
I wish that fact checkers would provide facts, and leave the interpretation and labeling to readers.