The press is not the enemy of the people, but I will be damned if it does not act like it sometimes.
The Daily Beast published a hit piece this weekend outing a private citizen whom it accuses of producing a hoax video. The viral clip purports to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a moment of inebriation. The footage, though widely circulated, is fake — it has been slowed deliberately to give the appearance of intoxication. But that has not stopped it from being shared by thousands of social media users, including by former New York City Mayor and presidential attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The video’s popularity is newsworthy insofar as it is a case study in how falsehoods can spread in the digital age. But that is not where Daily Beast contributing editor Kevin Poulsen took his story. Rather, Poulsen’s report focuses almost exclusively on “doxxing” the alleged author of the video. The Daily Beast has published details of the man’s work history, his supposed “misogyny” (he once called a woman a “bitch” for kicking him), and even his criminal record.
Remarkably enough, this is not even the first time that a major newsroom has hunted down a private citizen for the crime of producing political content opposed to Democratic politicians or supportive of President Trump.
In July 2017, CNN tracked down Reddit user “HanAssholeSolo” for creating a meme showing the president beating a humanoid version of the cable network’s logo. In its subsequent report on the matter, the network explained it agreed not to reveal the Reddit user’s true identity in return for a promise that he would refrain from engaging in similar behavior in the future.
“CNN is not publishing ‘HanA**holeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again,” the report read.
It added, “In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. … CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
News organization or secret police? You decide.
Later, in February 2018, CNN confronted a Florida woman, whom its reporters accused of unwittingly coordinating with Kremlin-connected trolls by promoting a pro-Trump Facebook page. The cable news network published the woman’s first, middle, and last names online. It revealed her state of residence and even named the county in which she lived. The network listed the exact title of the pro-Trump Facebook page associated with woman. CNN also broadcast images of the woman’s face. The Trump supporter, who had reportedly promoted an event organized by Russian trolls, later suffered online harassment because CNN had painted a target on her back.
As journalists like to say, three is a trend.
Several individuals in the news industry seem to believe they have a moral obligation to keep anti-Democratic or pro-Trump internet users in line. They are using the full force of newsrooms to rain hell down on the heads of unknown individuals who engage in supposedly “problematic” pro-Trump behavior.
Some of the journalists who support this behavior claim the Daily Beast report is defensible on the grounds that the video’s alleged author made himself a public figure when he involved himself with partisan “news” sites. This is an interesting take. I suppose this means political activists are now clear to publish the personal information of staffers in the employ of partisan news sites like the Huffington Post or Raw Story. Or would that be the bad kind of “doxxing?”
The Daily Beast and its defenders also claim they are really fighting disinformation and Russian influence. This is nonsense. The Daily Beast published a private American citizen’s work history, it dissected his supposedly offensive social media posts, and it dug into his criminal record. None of this is relevant to the matter of online falsehoods and spread of foreign political propaganda. Dredging up and publicly airing an private individual’s personal life story serves only one purpose: To shame, punish, and to serve as a warning to any would-be copycats.
What we saw this weekend was absolutely an attempt to control online behavior and frighten others into submission.
