FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Snopes article
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:57 pm    Post subject: Snopes article Reply with quote

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp

It says, "The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after 10 February 2009 meet all the new safety standards and comply with the lead ban."

Snopes is wrong, right? I thought that was the day that manufacturers and importers absolutely have to have certificates on everything, no matter what.
Back to top
J C Sprowls



Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say they selectively edited the source they quoted. The full passage cancels itself out, IOW: double-speak.

Quote:
The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.


Snopes opted to stop reading after the first sentence. They're doing a huge disservice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11094
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sarah N has been emailing them to get them to change it but they refuse to. Their thing is they just love to stamp FALSE on "rumors" and twist it around until it meets their narrow definition. Now, if they were to get an attorney to send them a letter, I wonder if they'd budge. After all, they advertise being the final poop so they are liable for giving out bad business advice?

Amended: Hey guys, guess what? Snopesiswrong.com is available! Or rather I should say, *was* available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aria
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea of a Snopes is Wrong website. While they're generally right on ad cite their sources, occasionally they're wrong, and if someone were to use Snopes as the final word on this subject, it could spell BIG FINES for a small company. It wouldn't hurt to have a website that has people fact-checking Snopes, a site dedicated to finding errors. It should help force Snopes to own up to, and fix, errors. Everyone makes them, but when one won't correct it, then there are problems.

Snopes also needs to not sound like an expert on this subject. They sound very factual rather that acknowledging that the laws aren't completely clear and are changing on an almost-daily basis right now. That concerns me possibly more than their refusal to change one thing already known to be wrong. They're not attorneys, yet flat out say something wrong as fact.
Back to top
Aria
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, they did NOT selectively edit the source they quoted. That quote is taken directly from here: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph....

These idiot lawmakers need to start being consistent. That page does indeed say items MADE after February 10 while other pages say all items SOLD after that date.
Back to top
J C Sprowls



Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit, drop, manipulate, lie through omission, spin... it's all the same: unreliable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aria
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it necessarily Snopes intending to mislead, or doing the barest of fact-checking on the page regarding reselling used items and not bothering to look deeper? If the article was thrown up quickly and the one page read was that one, then it's more an ignorant article than an intentionally misleading one. Regardless, when they are presented with more info that contradicts that one sentence, it becomes irresponsible when the author won't even consider that maybe she didn't have all the facts.

I think she's a good example of people looking at one little thing and thinking they understand the entire picture. I'm dealing with several people right now who think I'm blowing out of proportion, that clothing isn't included in tested just because one part they read dealt specifically with cribs, or painted items. She's definitely a good example of why people may be believing that this act isn't as bad as it is. Since many people want to believe they're always right, just showing that there is more to it could lead to the person becoming defensive rather than open and willing to admit there ma have been a mistake.

All Snopes articles should carry the disclaimer that they aren't attorneys. When an article is presented as being correct and factual and it's instead wrong, regardless of reason, that can lead to monetary damages to someone. Unfortunately most small businesses can't afford legal counsel and so have to do the research on their own. It won't help to come across a respected site giving the wrong information.

I wonder if there's a Wikipedia article.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11094
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aria wrote:
I wonder if there's a Wikipedia article.

But of course. Mr. Fashion-Incubator put it up weeks ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
J C Sprowls



Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it's more an ignorant article than an intentionally misleading one

Journalists who work for papers and magazines need to defend their work. If a conventional journalist bypasses fact-checking, their jobs are at risk.

This happens to be very easy to spot, if the reader bothers to follow the link to the source. It's evident if you read beyond the first sentence of the quoted passage that the author doesn't know their tucchus from their elbow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aria
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kathleen, I checked right after asking, and was thinking about posting somewhere here the point made about the lead button being "diluted" by the rest of the garment, then started to suspect someone here may have put the article up. A very good article. Only suggestion I'd make would be to link to more sections of the act so that it's bullet-proof. If I have time today between sewing some extremely dangerous cotton baby dresses that will kill babies (sarcasm, for anyone who didn't catch that), I'll try to get to that. I'm starting to find it's helping whenever I talk to someone to be able to point to specific passages, especially more than one passage, to back up every point I make, though there are still those who refuse to believe anything but that this is being blown out of proportion. Sadly, I'm finding those least likely to believe this are either childless people or wealthy people who can afford any price increases, and so don't see how it can affect regular-income and poor people if it won't affect their buying ability.
Back to top
anonymous9987678
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aria wrote:
Ah, they did NOT selectively edit the source they quoted. That quote is taken directly from here: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph....



They didn't read the entire 4th paragraph which still imposes felony charges and $100000 fines if they do sell anything above the prohibited lead limit. Yeah, so don't test - we're still not off the hook.
Back to top
GrecoWoodcrafting
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To say the least, this infuriates me. Possibly just as much as people getting canned replies from their congressmen that don't address the concerns their constituents brought up. I chose to blog about it today, feel free to let others know about it:

http://grecowoodcrafting.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/snopes-is-wrong-on-the-cpsia/

http://www.1000markets.com/blog_posts/2494

-John Greco
Greco Woodcrafting
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John, did you see I linked to your post that featured Arkush?
Back to top
GrecoWoodcrafting
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did! The only thing that would have made me happier was if he actually replied to all (or any) of the questions posed.

Thanks much Smile

-John Greco
Greco Woodcrafting
Back to top
Nina Harward
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sent a comment to Snopes, too. Hopefully, they'll change their article. Here's what I said if anyone cares:

***

I love snopes and constantly refer people to your site, especially when they email me things you debunked long ago. But I was dismayed to read your recent entry regarding the CPSIA (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/cpsia.asp.)

The link sited in your article (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml109/09086.html) does indeed state what you claim: "Sellers of used children's products...are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits...." However, the very next paragraph says the opposite: "[R]esellers CANNOT sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products...have less than the new limit. Those resellers that DO sell products in violation...could face civil and/or criminal penalties." (Emphasis added.) Is testing required, no, but it might as well be; the reseller is ultimately responsible for the merchandise in their store.

With the penalty being $100,000 per occurrence, your assessment of the law is dangerous to those who look to you to provide them with "the truth." I hope I can continue to refer people to your site when they send me those crazy emails.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group