The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convince a lot of people that critiques of snopes are invalid.)
On priors I'd expect there to be issues with the mail article, but the guardian doesn't tell me what they are.
The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convince a lot of people that critiques of snopes are invalid.)
On priors I'd expect there to be issues with the mail article, but the guardian doesn't tell me what they are.