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 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Who Funds the Federalist?” Isn’t About Transparency; It’s About Intimidation
A funny thing happens if you work or write for The Federalist: You have several to several hundred replies to every tweet asking a seemingly simple question: “Who funds the Federalist?”
They just want to know for transparency, you see; because there’s a nefarious Russian plot to take over America and they are certain that The Federalist, a conservative online magazine known to publish some pretty unpopular pieces, is involved.
Several years ago, when rumors similar to those swirling about The Federalist and Russia were making their way around media circles about Breitbart and Donald Trump, BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins got four Breitbart-affiliated sources to confirm they believed Trump was in some way funding the site and that it had affected the coverage.
Despite the questions circulating about The Federalist, there has not been a single report of a similar nature. Does that mean there isn’t shady money backing the project? No; I have no idea if there is or not. But it does mean that nobody professionally associated with the site thinks that their coverage has been swayed or compromised by those paying the bills, unlike at Breitbart.
In my years at the site I was never discouraged from writing something because of a donor concern; something that did happen at other sites over the years with publications more public about their funding than The Federalist.
So why won’t those at the helm of The Federalist just open the books and answer the question, “Who funds the Federalist?”
That’s because the campaign isn’t about transparency; it’s about intimidation. Finding out who funds The Federalist is just step one; step two will be convincing those funders to stop. Exposing their donors and funders does exactly one thing: open those individuals and/or foundations to a boycott and harassment campaign.
That step one campaign has been underway for Federalist employees and writers for some time; and it’s now extended to the wife of publisher and co-founder Ben Domenech, cohost of “The View,” Meghan McCain. She too is constantly asked “Who funds the Federalist?” So much so that the Huffington Post’s Yashar Ali commented:
What’s with this obsession with asking @MeghanMcCain who funds the Federalist? Why does she have to answer questions about her husband’s company..one he started long before they got married.
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) April 19, 2018
In this era of #MeToo, the same folks leading the movement and carrying the flag of women’s rights and liberation are asking a woman to answer for her husband’s business dealings, which began long before they exchanged their first text message. The whole idea of #MeToo activism in journalism is that women should feel safe to do their jobs at work, and so, naturally, The View’s cohosts, producers, and social media accounts are deluged with the accusation that she is somehow responsible for her husband’s publication’s accounting.
Here’s one particularly hot take from Republican consultant and media personality Cheri Jacobus:
her husband's secretly-funded website promotes her and did a gushing piece on her after the Comey segment. The Federalist blocks anyone asking who funds them. She needs to disclose. People think they are getting John Mccain's daughter but they are getting The Federalist
— Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) April 19, 2018
Meghan McCain, according to Jacobus, needs to spend more time behaving like a man’s daughter instead of her husband’s wife. Here’s an positively revolutionary idea: What if Meghan McCain is only responsible for … Meghan McCain? Perhaps in 2018 we can admit she is not a parrot for her father’s ideas, nor her husband’s, but instead, just her own. That may be asking too much.
Published in Journalism
Oh no! According to Hillary, conservative women only vote Republican because their fathers or husbands tell them to . . .
I think the really important point to note, here, is that I do not, in fact, write for the federalist. In fact, every piece that I’ve submitted has been soundly and rudely rejected, in terms reminiscent of Snoopy’s declined submissions. Therefore, I also demand to know who the hell is funding this thing?!
Well, whoever they are, I thank them.
I’m reasonably sure that it’s not George Soros. Do these “who funds” types ever ask the same question about other publications/organizations that they are more favorably disposed to?
The real issue is one’s ability to discuss/debate particular content in The Federalist. It’s either true or false, well reasoned or poorly reasoned. The “who funds” stuff is just a lazy dodge to avoid having to discuss the specifics of content.
It’s about intimidation, and if that fails discrediting. If, for example (I have no idea) the Koch brothers were the financial support (which is unlikely), then intimidation would fail. So then they would turn it the other way and label everything The Federalist writes as “[insert donor] propaganda” in an attempt to discredit it.
Yes.
Because the Mob wants somebody to feed upon.
People used to ask me sometimes (in some cases rudely, but also sometimes pretty tactfully, like, “I’m curious, what is the Federalist’s business model?”). That was mostly before McCain entered the orbit, and even back then I found it sort of uncomfortable not to be able to answer. (I did ask Ben once, and he wouldn’t tell me much.) Obviously you’re correct though that the intimidation factor has been something of a hot wind behind the thing.
пожалуйста!
Probably someone hiding behind a pseudonym.
Did they all start with “It was a dark and stormy night?”
The business plan is:
What does this mean and why is it relevant to the post and if it is relevant why not explain it?
Also, Ricochet funds The Federalist.
All I know is, I dislike the type of GOP that makes a big deal out of the Federalist. I have never understood what their complaints are. I don’t get it. I don’t think I have ever read and article at the Federalist that I have disliked or questioned.
Who here has a problem with the Federalist and why? I don’t get it.
I knew it! Rob Long is Mister Big!
I thin Leftists have a problem with The Federalist. And the reason is that the Federalist seems to be successful.
Everyone over there seems off-the-charts smart, to me.
The point is simply one of comparison: that a dogged journalist was able to find four Breitbart sources who thought that (right-leaning) publication was compromised by its funding, but no one has been able to do the same at The (also right-leaning) Federalist even after similar scrutiny. That’s it.
IMO, the appropriate course of action is to cite chapter and verse as to the manner in which specific articles are compromised by funding. I realize that that’s not a particularly easy lift, and, at least in this instance, the comment was essentially an aside. However, to do otherwise is to suggest that all or most content at a particular site is influenced by the source of the $$$.
There is one writer who I find to be a little silly on social issues (I forget his name), but otherwise, The Federalist is a good use of my time — even though I’m more than a little mad at them for stealing Mollie and DC from Ricochet! Dangit.
If I was funding the Federalist, I would be sure to do it in a way that could never, ever be traced back to me. And I would make sure that the people at the Federalist have no idea where the funds are coming from. If they do not know, they cannot say; I would not be relying on their silence, but their ignorance.
That’s just good sense.
Confirmed, iWe is the secret funder.
Of course.
Do you come from a land down under?
I think it’s a fair question because it could speak to underlying assumptions or the general context/prism through which questions are considered, or yes to trustworthiness. Although, I’m not sure why someone would care in this case. The Federalist has a viewpoint and doesn’t hide it. Seems like mostly opinion pieces there: so it’s really not a matter of true or false, more like interesting or useful.
Of course, trolls can also use this legitimate question to cause trouble rather than genuinely inquire, to attack rather than to understand. That’s internet life: all public even to the troublemakers.
It doesn’t matter what Soros funds, because he doesn’t make anything that people who oppose his viewpoint can boycott. He makes his money manipulating currencies and bankrupting economies. Lovely man.
People came forward who work/ed for Breitbart to outside reporters and told them they thought that the funding impacted their coverage. That has never happened with anyone at Federalist.
Meghan McCain isn’t even all that conservative. She is, by all accounts, noticeably to the left of her father.
Admittedly this can be hard to tell while watching The View.
Only a Federalist writer would deny being a Federalist writer.
“I’m the Federalist and so is my wife.”
Ahhhh, but who funds @iWe ?