Hey Hondo would you say that your party's Presidential Candidate's conspiracy theories about black voter suppression are worse than or equal to an anonymous message board poster's comments about Pizzagate or Seth Rich?
The Washington Post's fact-checker sharply critiqued former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her claims on Sunday concerning voter suppression in Wisconsin and Georgia in the 2016 presidential election.
“Clinton made several factual errors, offered questionable claims about a couple of studies, and ended up giving a misleading assessment of her loss,” Salvador Rizzo wrote in his column. The Post gave Clinton “Four Pinocchios.”
“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference,” Clinton said Sunday in Selma, Ala., commemorating “Bloody Sunday.” “And it doesn’t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”
“Just think about it: Between 2012, the prior presidential election where we still had the Voting Rights Act, and 2016, when my name was on the ballot, there were fewer voters registered in Georgia than there had been those prior four years,” Clinton told the audience.
The Post responded that “Clinton’s claim that total voter registration declined in that state from 2012 to 2016 is false; it increased.”
I thought the Washington Post is liberal. Are you saying they are eating their own?
Hey Hondo would you say that your party's Presidential Candidate's conspiracy theories about black voter suppression are worse than or equal to an anonymous message board poster's comments about Pizzagate or Seth Rich?
Well one is based in fact and the other is bullshit repeated on the number 1 news talk show.
What's it like being a pathological liar Hondo?
Again you double down not knowing the difference between "comment based in fact" and a "factual comment". Idiot.
But her comment wasn't based in fact. Double down dumbfuck double down. It's Hondo's weekly "photoshopped" moment.
Did she say it from Reagan’s house in Sacramento. You know, the one Newsom is living in, rent free.
The whole thing is worth a read, but the more pertinent part as it relates to the practice of journalism:
In December 2018, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker asked me to talk about some of my experiences at Fox News. I spoke at length with her over the months, yet she never inquired about the Stormy Daniels story at all.
A week before publication, I received a few phone calls from a New Yorker fact checker confirming my quotes. Her last one was a surprise, asking me to confirm or deny what they heard from a secondhand source, alleging I had told our reporter it was “good reporting” but we shelved it because of Rupert Murdoch’s politics. I neither said nor even thought that because neither of those things was true.
I sent Mayer an email with some explanation and an offer to talk, and she responded: “sorry but I didn’t know fact-checkers called, I was hoping to call you first. we just added this to the story today. I’ll call in a bit. up to my eyeballs right this moment.” She never did.
I find it odd that she spoke to multiple others about the event, but didn’t have a single question for me, the person who unilaterally made the decision. She had time to interview and substantively quote The Dirty’s owner, however. In fairness, she did include a link to the year-old Mediaite story and reprinted 10 words from me.
In her 11,635 word piece, she didn’t find room to mention the paucity of evidence we had, the conflicting statements nor the other outlets which responded exactly as we did.
I think Fox News is a propaganda outlet. I support the DNC in taking a hard line against fake journalism in the defense of our democracy. I look forward to them also barring MSNBC and CNN until real fact based reporting and objectivity in the media is restored.
Comments
The DNC head is afraid to have candidates on Fox. It's all over the news
Why would the DNC legitimize the White House's propaganda network
No fear
Fair and balanced.
The whole thing is worth a read, but the more pertinent part as it relates to the practice of journalism:
A week before publication, I received a few phone calls from a New Yorker fact checker confirming my quotes. Her last one was a surprise, asking me to confirm or deny what they heard from a secondhand source, alleging I had told our reporter it was “good reporting” but we shelved it because of Rupert Murdoch’s politics. I neither said nor even thought that because neither of those things was true.
I sent Mayer an email with some explanation and an offer to talk, and she responded: “sorry but I didn’t know fact-checkers called, I was hoping to call you first. we just added this to the story today. I’ll call in a bit. up to my eyeballs right this moment.” She never did.
I find it odd that she spoke to multiple others about the event, but didn’t have a single question for me, the person who unilaterally made the decision. She had time to interview and substantively quote The Dirty’s owner, however. In fairness, she did include a link to the year-old Mediaite story and reprinted 10 words from me.
In her 11,635 word piece, she didn’t find room to mention the paucity of evidence we had, the conflicting statements nor the other outlets which responded exactly as we did.