From the Internet’s Newspaper of Record—I’m so old I remember when outlets like The Babylon Bee were still satire, and satire was a form of joking.
Only one of these organization admits to publishing fiction. One story has its basis in unverified claims. One story is a reasonable parody of what was actually said.
But one of the publications has a good crossword puzzle feature.
Last week Snopes was caught publishing a misleading “fact check” of a satirical piece by The Babylon Bee. The brouhaha led BuzzFeed to do a story claiming that the Bee‘s reaction to Snopes‘ continuing train of false “fact checks” is some sort of conspiracy theory or something. David French has a post over at NRO debunking the BuzzFeed article.
Here’s what actually happened this week. Snopes launched an unfair attack on the Bee and got caught. Now it’s getting criticized. Oh, and the Bee is right to be concerned since a previous misbegotten Snopes fact check had threatened its business. That’s it. That’s the story. There is no conspiracy theory, only troubling facts that are worth criticizing. But somehow BuzzFeed managed to make the story primarily about Snopes’s critics, not about the fact that Snopes persistently (and sometimes misleadingly) fact-checks obvious conservative humor and satire.
Read the whole thing.
Exit question: Is BuzzFeed still relevant enough that anyone should bother fact checking it?
Here’s a tweet from The Babylon Bee. It has a historical basis.You see, the reason that the National Socialist Worker’s Party got labeled “right wing” is that the Nazis were somewhat more tolerant of private ownership that the Communist Party of the USSR.
French’s piece, Franklin Graham and the High Cost of the Lost Evangelical Witness, takes Billy Graham’s son to task for having a double standard with respect to presidential morals. Graham spoke out against what he saw as Bill Clinton’s moral lapses 1998, but in 2018 called “this thing with Stormy Daniels and so forth … nobody’s business.” Yet, he’s recently called out Pete Buttigieg, tweeting, “As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as a sin, something not to be flaunted, praised or politicized.” French (and I) see Graham as inconsistent, and he (and I) see such inconsistency as the sort of hypocrisy that blunts the Church’s witness to the world.
The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.
Read the whole thing.
This tweet from The Babylon Bee is a proper, if humorous, response to some Christian’s acceptance to Donald Trump’s sexual behavior.
FWIW, I didn’t support Trump in 2016, he hasn’t been an ideal president, but I believe that he’s done better that Hillary Clinton would have. That brings me to Sarah Hoyt’s post, We SEE You. She writes,
Years ago, I told a friend that I voted Republican, not because they were that much better than the Democrats, but because the press hated them and would keep an eye on them, while the left got a complete pass, which meant they could get crazier and crazier.
Christians on the Right shouldn’t fall in to the same trap that has caught so many folks on the Left. We need to shine the light of Truth rather that avert it because of worldly political convenience. Hoyt continues,
The deeds done in dark? Shout them from the rooftops. Do not give the left their presumption of good, or even of good intentions.
Read all of this one too.
I’ll add that the Right is not entitled to any presumption of good either. The Truth is out there.