Revisions and hiding the ball

The Virginia-based publication took umbrage recently with right-wingers who’ve spread misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding the recent assault on Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Beyond Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Politico reports, “pro-Trump commentators from Charlie Kirk to former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. also weighed in online to raise questions about the investigation based on unfounded and false claims.”

The article then cites two “baseless claims” pushed recently by right-wing provocateurs. Weirdly, the “baseless claims” Politico cites sprung from the press itself, including Politico!

The news outlet reports [emphasis added]: “Among those baseless claims: that a third person answered the door when police arrived at the Pelosi home, which San Francisco law enforcement has said is untrue; and that DePape was in his underwear when apprehended, a falsehood taken from a since-corrected local news report.”

Unmentioned in the above passage is the fact that Politico is responsible for the third man theory.

On Oct. 30, Politico published a report titled “Police offer new details in Paul Pelosi assault,” which included the following passage [emphasis added]: “Officers arrived at the house, knocked on the front door and were let inside by an unknown person. They discovered DePape and Pelosi struggling for a hammer, and after they instructed them to drop the weapon, Scott said, DePape took the hammer and ‘violently attacked’ Pelosi.”

Politico has since amended the article to reword this section. The edited part reads: “David DePape forced his way into the home through a back entrance, Scott said. The police chief said Friday that officers arrived at the house and entered through the front door, which someone — they didn’t specify who — opened from the inside.” The report also bears an editor’s note, which reads: “CLARIFICATION: This report has been updated to clarify that according to the San Francisco Police Department and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, there were only two people inside the Pelosi home when police arrived early Friday morning, Paul Pelosi and the suspect, David DePape.”

The timeline of events accounted for, the question remains: Why use the term “baseless” to refer to narratives that appeared first in the press? The cited claims, though apparently false, are not exactly “baseless.” They came directly from major media outlets, not the conspiracy theory fever swamps. The third man theory may not be true, but Politico’s initial coverage certainly suggested otherwise. Readers are simply repeating things they read in the news!

How do you write an article about online misinformation, going so far as to use the term “baseless claims,” and neglect to include your own role in creating one such “baseless” claim? Indeed, it seems unfair to grumble about the Right’s promotion of “baseless claims” when the “baseless claims” came directly from major news groups. Who is actually at fault here?

If Politico wants to dissect bogus narratives and online misinformation, it’s only fair to let readers know where some of these false claims originated from in the first place. In this instance, it’s unfair to act as if right-wingers are simply inventing stories from whole cloth. Politico and KTVU are 100% responsible for the “baseless” claims cited by Politico. It’s a crazy idea, but perhaps taking full responsibility for birthing these false narratives (or even getting the story right the first time) would go a long way toward combating online misinformation. And Politico would do well to lose the attitude, considering Politico played a significant role in the very thing it is now decrying.

He/Him Crow*

It’s not activism. It’s laziness.

NBC News reporter Jo Yurcaba warned voter identification laws are bad, dangerous, and inadvisable because they “disproportionately impact” people who identify as transgender.

Sure. Why not?

“So, voter ID laws disproportionately impact trans people, because trans people are more likely to have IDs without the name that they go by and the gender marker that reflects how they present,” Yurcaba said in an appearance on NBC News.

The reporter added: “And recent research shows that just over 200,000 eligible trans voters in 31 states that both conduct their elections mostly in person and require or request ID at the polls don’t have IDs that reflect their gender identities and the names they of by.”

For good measure, Yurcaba concluded, “And, you know, the states that have the strictest voter ID laws are mostly concentrated in the South and Midwest.” It feels as if they’re just not even trying anymore. It’s as if they’re phoning it in — to the point where the activism feels almost passive-aggressive. If these people want to play the role of activists with media credentials, they can put in at least some effort. Because this is one of the lazier anti-voter ID arguments (see also: scare tactics) that has come up in a long, long time.

Are they just tired? Bored? So are we!

*Sadly, I did not come up with this joke. A friend did.

Hiding the ball  

If you write an investigative report detailing one Senate candidate’s supposed ties to a controversial state-run organization, you should probably check to see if his opponent has ties to the same group.

Because if it turns out both candidates are associated in some way with the same group, and you choose to focus on only one, people may mistake you for a hack.

Someone should tell this to the New York Times, which published a lazy bit of 2022 midterm scaremongering titled “Company Backed by J.D. Vance Gives Platform for Russian Propaganda.” The subheading reads, “An interview of captive Americans done ‘under duress’ appears on a web platform backed by J.D. Vance and Peter Thiel.”

The video-sharing platform Rumble, which features a channel hosted by the Kremlin-run “news” network RT (formerly Russia Today), “has become a leading destination for conservative content by positioning itself as a platform for unfettered speech, an alternative to the content moderation — or ‘censorship,’ to many on the right — of mainstream social media sites like Facebook and Twitter,” the report notes.

RT’s presence in the United States is largely nonexistent following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. The European Union took things a step further in March, banning the Russian “news” organization outright.

The New York Times report adds: “Last year, Rumble received a major investment from a venture capital firm co-founded by J.D. Vance, the Republican Senate candidate in Ohio. The firm, Narya Capital, got a seat on Rumble’s board, and its more than seven million shares place it among the company’s top 10 shareholders, according to securities filings. Mr. Vance also took a personal Rumble stake worth between $100,000 and $250,000, his financial disclosures show.”

There are two key problems with the report, which clearly accuses Ohio Republican Senate Candidate J.D. Vance of being involved in a scheme to peddle Russian propaganda in the West.

First, Vance’s “ties” to RT are a bit thin, to put it mildly. His firm has invested in a video-sharing platform that features a Russia Today channel. As Vance’s campaign told the New York Times, “J.D. does not play an active role at Rumble, nor does he set Rumble’s content moderation policies.” This is … pretty reasonable, actually.

Second, the New York Times report fails to make even a single mention of Senate candidate Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and his many, many, many appearances on RT. This is absurd.

If we’re going suggest a Senate candidate is neck-deep in Russian propaganda because his firm has invested in a video-sharing platform that includes, among many things, an RT channel, what are we to make of the Senate candidate who has made multiple personal appearances on the same Russian network? Also, what are we to make of the fact the New York Times chose to highlight only Vance’s supposed ties to Russia Today, all while ignoring Ryan’s long history of in-person appearances on the Kremlin propaganda network? Ryan even invited an RT crew into his Capitol office in 2016!

As for Ryan and his campaign, they have chosen simply to ignore his history of appearances on RT, choosing instead to amplify the New York Times’s hit piece on Vance.

The Ryan campaign has accused Vance of backing “a company spreading butcher Vladimir Putin’s propaganda. He continues to profit off of it.”

“This should be absolutely disqualifying,” added Ryan campaign spokeswoman Izzy Levy.

Disqualifying, you say?