No, I understand how objectivity works. Anyone can be wrong. I never appealed to a time they were wrong (though those exist). The point is that they are interpreting data and are not always reliable in the interpretation of that data. Nor are they always transparent. Here is an article that explains some of the issues: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#2fec4246227f

Furthermore, they can be completely accurate in what they say but present something misleading by what they omit.

John Bolton, who is no fan of this administration, said, “Claims that streamlining NSC structures impaired our nation’s bio defense are false. Global health remained a top NSC priority, and its expert team was critical to effectively handling the 2018-19 Africa Ebola crisis. The angry Left just can’t stop attacking, even in a crisis.”

Reuter’s, which is no right wing source, labels the claim only “partly false”: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M

Feel free to differ on Snopes. I don’t check them. If others do, fine. The point in this case is that they are contradicting the word of a person who was actually there. And they are contradicting the plain fact that the office still exists in another place in the organization.

As for the office still existing: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=office+of+biodefense+pandemic+nsc

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Approval rating up five percentage points from prior poll
60% approve of president’s response to COVID-19
Job approval higher among independents, Democrats

President Trump’s Job Approval Rating Up to 49%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/298313/president-trump-job-approval-rating.aspx

It is Snopes’ word–their interpretation of the data, which, as others have shown, is not always reliable.

Part of the problem is, you misunderstand how objectivity works. Anyone could be wrong. Nobody is 100.0% reliable. The correct measure is *not*, they were wrong one time so they are not reliable (noting that you didn’t provide evidence here). You look at how transparent they are and *when* they are wrong, what do they do about it?

One the first point, they list their sources. You can go to the sources and see if they are misrepresenting. By all means, do that. On the second point, when they are wrong, they have a public contact form through which to issue corrections. By all means, do that. When they issue corrections, they are noted in the main article. These are some of the reason I trust them. In addition, they try to avoid inflammatory language unlike, say, The Federalist.

But the fact is that the office still exists. You can verify that in numerous places. It was simply reorganized into a different spot in the organization.

Cite missing. -10 points.

It is Snopes’ word–their interpretation of the data, which, as others have shown, is not always reliable.

But the fact is that the office still exists. You can verify that in numerous places. It was simply reorganized into a different spot in the organization.