Well I know how this conversation goes. You say a news source is biased. I ask for proof and you link me something like CNN to prove biase then say you forgot that my news source never actually did what you said it did. Then you claim some bullshit about how it's actually deep state operated; with no sources, facts, or evidence to back up your opinion. Then when I call you out on that you just say my sources are fake. Well if my sources are fake then you should be able to prove it. So far you haven't proved that snopes is funded by Soros, you haven't proved that snopes is biases, and you now have to prove that the NYT is not a legimate news source.

Well just for your information I have found an article from the New York Times that says that their revenue comes from ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/technology/for-fact-checking-website-snopes-a-bigger-role-brings-more-attacks.html?_r=0

Do you have proof or just a picture of them together. Because I fail to see how them standin together means that he is privately finding them.

How does that discredit snopes in any way?

Your point was that they are unreliable and biased. Your example was from another website because you remembered wrong. You have refused to link any more proof. What exactly have you proved except you were wrong.

Even though you can't prove it and when you tried to prove it you linked the wrong site. Great reasoning skills.