Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Even The Hill Is Calling ABC on Their “Fact Checks”
Jonathan Turley writing in The Hill sharply corrects ABC’s fact checks. The Hill is a DC institution, covering Congress and federal politics. They have never really distinguished themselves from the herd narrative on a consistent basis, but now they have done this:
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
That famous line from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) remains a virtual mantra for politicians and pundits. Yet, judging from the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, we have officially entered the post-truth political era.
ABC News has been widely criticized for the bias of the two moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir. Even liberal outlets acknowledged that the two journalists seemed inclined to “fact check” only Trump. In the meantime, they allowed clearly false statements from Harris go unchallenged.
Three of the unchecked claims are being widely disseminated by supporters, including some in the media. Here are three legal “facts” that are being repeated despite being clearly untrue.
And the piece continues with careful refutations of three ABC “fact checks”.
I do not carefully monitor news sources that have proven themselves truth-denying propaganda outlets. I watched Trump speak live at Charlottesville and then heard/read the coverage. The Charlottesville Hoax was spreading like wildfire in the opposition press. A scandalous lie, I even went back to hear the speech a second time to confirm the hoax, several “news” sources were stricken from my list in the wake of that. Truth is the only currency of value that any journalist has, and these news outlets were vigorously selling their credibility to support this ridiculous hoax.
The first sign that they might want to reconsider their course came with the recent gentle criticisms of Biden that they had been denying for years. Deep fakes, they said. But it wasn’t that they had a change of heart, rather, the hidden director of their cross-industry propaganda efforts apparently found Biden’s poll numbers unacceptable, and suddenly the gaffs and freezes and wanderings and sniffing were real and signs of deeper problems.
And at the debate, ABC made it crystal clear that they would lie to provoke Trump, to serve their propaganda director, reputation be damned. And other propaganda channels have continued to repeat these long-discredited facts under cover of ABC’s subterfuge. I am pleased to find The Hill among the few organizations willing to call ABC out on their faithless disregard for the truth.
And thank you, Jonathan Turley.
Read the refutations, they are telling.
Published in Election 2024
Wow. I can only imagine the consequences that will be faced by ABC, Muir and Davis…
It just got more interesting. Linsey Davis spoke to the LA Times. ABC thought that the problem with the CNN debate was that Trump was allowed to speak without correction. She does claim that there was an intention to check both debaters. Impressive since, in the end, they “corrected” correct Trump answers and none of the many lies repeated by Harris were corrected. Very impressive, ABC.
In answer to @genferei’s question, whatever consequences they suffer cannot be enough, from Harris’ best buddy at the head of ABC News to the two would be executioners of Trump’s campaign, Muir and Davis. Activists masquerading as journalists have no business being in the business.
Isn’t that all of them these days?
All of them in the Democrat Media Complex, anyway.
The cat eating claims have been debunked? By the governor? How would he know?? Is he an investigative journalist? Has he interviewed the neighbors? Like Chris Rufo, who brings the receipts for the cats on the barbie claim?
No matter how much you hate the media complex, it isn’t enough.
I’m an inactivist.
I forgot to add my main point. Why use the term “activist” when “partisan hack” is available?
True, “partisan hack” is far more accurate.
Mr. Muir and Ms. Davis have a bit of the Ted Baxter touch–they clearly think they have a better grasp on things than they actually do but are not really smart enough to notice.
I don’t hate people merely for being stupid or mediocre. I loathe stupid and mediocre people who think they have made it to the outer edge of all knowledge and the rest of us have not. If you are presuming to interrupt, contradict, and fact-check the people, one of whom will be President in 2025, you better get it right.
They wrote the questions. It should not be a stumper to know the answers.
The pet-eating meme is vintage Trump–some factually dubious shorthand for an actual issue. The fact that these featherweights decided that the REAL issue is whether cats were consumed and not the disaster inflicted on a US town of 60,000 by despicable federal policy choices and actions says more about their judgment than the relevant facts.
I am not sure how one would fact-check Kamala. It is not as if her answers ever contain any specific assertions.
Actually, they do. Her “humble middle class American background” lie is a staple of her stump speech. She grew up in a very wealthy Montreal-area neighborhood. Can you imagine Trump getting a whopper like that past our bent media?
A lot of people probably believe she actually worked at McDonald’s, too.
Muir dinged himself a little with his debate conduct, says Fox News:
True but I get the feeling that Muir doesn’t really care. He stated in his own interview (conducted by ABC, of course) that any criticism of him was simply “noise”.
Hard to comprehend a combination of arrogance and ignorance such as his.
The checks clear. If he’s smart he’s set for life already.
And he probably has a contract where they pay him whether he works or not.