Snopes Omits Information On Kroger Incident, Then Suggests It Didn’t Happen

Snopes altered a story so that they could suggest that it wasn't true.

Snopes altered a story so that they could suggest that it wasn’t true.

Snopes Omits Information On Kroger Incident, Then Suggests It Didn’t Happen

Many people are aware that Snopes is a biased source of information, but they just went full-CNN by removing information, and then suggested a story wasn’t true because of the missing information.

Blue Lives Matter recently covered the story of a police officer who was refused service at a Alexandria, Louisiana Kroger store. As always, we took steps to verify the information and waited to give Kroger a chance to respond before we published the story. We want to ensure that the information we provide is accurate and that companies have a chance to respond appropriately. We published the story only after Kroger had ample time to respond to the involved officer and did not get back to her. After our story was published, Kroger responded and you can see their response HERE.

After both Kroger and the Pineville Police Department had responded to the story, Snopes decided to cover the story. However, the Snopes writer already appeared set on attacking Blue Lives Matter for covering the story, and she wasn’t afraid to change the story to fit her narrative.

Both a response from Kroger and the police department acknowledged that the incident had occurred, and it appeared that there should be nothing to attack Blue Lives Matter for. Instead, the Snopes writer published part of our story, omitting the part which explained the circumstances, and then criticized the lack of available information.

After omitting the part of the story that explained the circumstances, Snopes’ writer said:

How the Kroger cashier was able to divine that her customer was a cop remained unexplained in the narrative.

The second paragraph in Blue Lives Matter’s story was omitted by Snopes, and read:

Pineville Police Department Pfc. Sabrina Farace advised us that she was wearing a police shirt when she was grocery shopping with her daughter at the Alexandria Kroger store. The checkout clerk saw her shirt, asked her if she was police officer, and then refused to check her out.

That seems pretty clear to me. Before any skeptics claim that we added this information after-the-fact, Snopes did us the favor of archiving our page for the story, so you can see Snopes’ source HERE.

Unfortunately, Snopes didn’t stop there. They then suggested to readers that the entire situation may not be true and that Kroger’s apology was just a defensive reaction. Even if you don’t trust the police department’s response, this looks pretty clear to me:

Snopes certainly looks like they are trying to attack the credibility of the officer who was involved in this incident, and the credibility of Blue Lives Matter. They didn’t stop there though, they also suggested that the subsequent story of a police officer’s wife being refused service was also false, because they failed at putting in a reasonable effort to verify it.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below or on our Facebook page.

  • La Huerita

    I never trust SNOPES as a reliable source for the truth -don’t even use them anymore for the reason this article points out. This is not the first time they have misconstrued the truth. They lean very left and are biased in their reports.

  • Tabludama

    Snopes is a fraud. When their leftist agenda doesn’t come into play they can be a good source of basic knowledge. But when their leftist agenda needs to be supported they dont care about the facts.

  • Chris Christopher

    I didn’t think anybody over the age of 12 tried to use Snopes as a reference or to prove a point.

  • concernedforall

    I have never believed SNOPES. SNOPES is fake.

  • Vito LaBella

    Snopes had been my go to source for verification. Any suggestions on a better place?

    • Midas68

      National Enquirer

    • NebraskaFilly

      It is always best to do your own research; having said that, most Americans simply don’t have the time to do this. Being retired, I have the time and have spent hours and hours each and every day for the last 3 years doing this myself. Initially, I began by visiting 10 to 20 different news sites every day. Over time, I have whittled the sites down, to include Fox Business (not Fox News any more, to be sure), Breitbart, TheConservativeTreehouse, Judicial Watch, Freedom Watch, Personal Liberty, WND, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Times. I also visit Pravda and other international news sites, including the UK, Turkey, the Kurds, and Egyptian news. In order to REALLY know what is actually going on, this is what is required.

  • Sabol100

    Snopes long ago was somewhat factual. However, in the last 5 years or so I had come to doubt their truthfulness and started researching things deeper myself. I also started researching the contributors and learned almost all are associated with MSM, or worse, have their own site believing they are the be all, end all. My assessment is that Snopes no longer is an unbiased site.

    • Lisa Renee

      They’ve been posting false or baseless stories for at least 10 years. I remember reading an article in 2005 where they rated a story as false based on nothing more than a handwave. Not one iota of research.

      Their bias became even more obvious in 2008 when they went to great pains to rate anything negative about Obama as false (frequently adding details that weren’t in the original story or basing it on “well, what he really meant to say was…” type nonsense), yet not affording Sarah Palin the same.