4 ms·

I think in general yes, absolutely true. Everyone across the political spectrum is just as susceptible. However, in this election, people on the left didn't nee

I think in general yes, absolutely true. Everyone across the political spectrum is just as susceptible. However, in this election, people on the left didn't need to look any further than the candidate's own words to get the rage high they were seeking. For the right though, I mean sure, you have mishandling of emails and a charitable foundation, but even with years investigation and even publicly leaked emails there wasn't a whole lot of fire, just a bunch of smoke.

briandear 10y ago
Actually I'd make the argument that given the propensity for major media outlets to be strongly left-biased, there were plenty of real stories to inflame the left. While those same outlets were actually promoting an unproven talking point that Clinton emails were hacked/released by the Russians. Hillary Clinton claimed that to be true, so that became the narrative, even though that news was "fake." There has been, in fact no proof that the Russians did anything -- only that the techniques uses were similar to ones the Russians have used. [1] Yet, we're still hearing stories that the Russians "hacked" the DNC and Clinton. In fact, the media was casting doubt on the authenticity of the leaked documents. MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, dutifully informed viewers that the transcripts "haven't been authenticated." (When referring to a leaked Goldman Sachs speech.) Clinton said in front of the 66 million TV viewers of the second presidential debate, "The Russian government [is] directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election and WikiLeaks is part of that.." The emails were either hacked or they're not real. Nobody has ever complained about their fake emails being hacked. Outlets spent more time talking about how despicable the Russians were yet ignoring, for the most part the content of those emails. For example, one of those emails was Clinton campaign chair talking about "Needy latinos." Not a single word printed in the Times, the Washington Post or any mainstream media outlet. However, Trump says something 20 years ago and it becomes front-page news for literally a week. Given that one of the themes of this election was "racism" -- the characterization of the two people to which Podesta was referring would be considered relevant considering claims of racism were being made against Trump. However, imagine if a "reputable" news organization dug into the Clinton Foundation's apparent irregularities with the gusto with which they covered Trump's purported sexual harassment. For example, The Daily Beast published a story in October called "All of Donald Trump's Accusers: A Timeline of Every Alleged Grope."[2] Now to their credit, they did use the word "alleged," however, if you look at their coverage of the Clinton Foundation, they were almost apologetic. For example, "Hey Hillary, It's Past Time to Shut Down the Clinton Foundation. It does great work. But in political terms, it's an albatross."[3] The writer then goes on to complain about how Judicial Watch is scrutinizing the Foundation. The entire point of that piece and those similar is that the Clinton's should shut down the foundation because it's red meat for right-wing investigation and thus politically unhelpful. Not a single word about the allegation of pay-to-play or any number of ethical issues (such as the Foundation paying for Chelsea's wedding.[4].) Interesting that only Fox and the NYPost reported this, despite this being hugely unethical and probably illegal and germane to the question of Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and ethics as well as interesting to the IRS as well as donors who ostensibly are donating to charity. Jenna Bush drinking underage in Austin during the Bush administration got more coverage on CNN than what approaches embezzlement by Chelsea Clinton.[5] The purpose of this comment is to point out that those on the right who are typically targeted by fake news are so gullible to it because there is a large percentage of stories in the mainstream media that are anti-conservative yet there ARE substantial stories that the media either ignores or glosses over when it comes to the left. Chelsea Clinton potentially embezzling millions of charitable contributions is a huge story that at least warrants investigation. Sanders supporting DNC activist Seth Rich gets murdered, the media calls it a robbery despite nothing being taken, yet no enterprising reporter seems interested in digging any deeper?[6] What that means is that there is a market demand for more information about the stories that are hinted at but aren't fully reported. The left, on the other hand has plenty of well-reported anti-right news to read with mainstream outlets, thus their appetite for information is mostly satisfied. [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-donald-trump-s-accusers-a-timeline-of-every-alleged-grope-and-assault.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-dona... [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary-it-s-past-time-to-shut-down-the-clinton-foundation.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary... [4] http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation-to-help-pay-for-wedding-emails/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation... [5] http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_death_of_seth_rich/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_deat...
- russdill 10y ago
  Hi, thanks so much for a reasoned and intelligent response. It's very hard sometimes to see the point of view of the other side so I really appreciate the time you spent here. As far as emails go, you can check out politifact for the sources that have been used to say that the Russians were involved: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/... It is a fact that that is the statement for Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as well as many other agencies (17, which you can see listed). I'm noticing here you have left off the beginning of the quote, without putting a […]. The beginning of the quote is "Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the". While Hillary has lied in the debates and has been called out for it, there is no doubt that the above is a truthful statement, that is the position of the US intelligence community. And yes, claiming that oh, maybe they aren't real is a bit disingenuous. Of course some fake stuff could be slipped in, but given the lack of major revelations within the emails, it seems pretty doubtful. On the other side of the coin, your story here is that there was so much dirt in the emails and the foundation, etc, but it wasn't widely reported, so the right resorted to fake news instead? That makes zero sense to me. If there is dirt that the media failed to report, why bother making up fake news? Reading into your links, I can see why people resorted to fake news. Take the Clinton Foundation paying for weddings, living expenses, etc. The WikiLeaks email discusses an investigation of a alleged wrongdoing, not a wrongdoing itself. I'm sure there are Trump campaign emails where they discuss the alleged rape of a 13 year old. Would you think such emails are proof? No, of course not, it makes perfect sense for them to discuss the allegations and (then) pending trial. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the discussion of allegations was 4 years ago. Did something come of the allegation? I haven't seen anything. The reason it wasn't reported is that it's a non-story. You can actually go and read the financial reports of the Clinton Foundation (something you cannot do of the Trump foundation incidentally). The other big issue here is that fake news has not only been enormously popular on the right this election cycle, it has been leveraged by the campaign, including Trump (such as the "Blumenthal" quote) and his children. Donald Jr being particularly susceptible to retweeting fake news. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls-totally-obvious-fake-hillary-email-conspiracy.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls...

briandear 10y ago

Actually I'd make the argument that given the propensity for major media outlets to be strongly left-biased, there were plenty of real stories to inflame the left. While those same outlets were actually promoting an unproven talking point that Clinton emails were hacked/released by the Russians. Hillary Clinton claimed that to be true, so that became the narrative, even though that news was "fake." There has been, in fact no proof that the Russians did anything -- only that the techniques uses were similar to ones the Russians have used. [1] Yet, we're still hearing stories that the Russians "hacked" the DNC and Clinton. In fact, the media was casting doubt on the authenticity of the leaked documents. MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, dutifully informed viewers that the transcripts "haven't been authenticated." (When referring to a leaked Goldman Sachs speech.) Clinton said in front of the 66 million TV viewers of the second presidential debate, "The Russian government [is] directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election and WikiLeaks is part of that.." The emails were either hacked or they're not real. Nobody has ever complained about their fake emails being hacked. Outlets spent more time talking about how despicable the Russians were yet ignoring, for the most part the content of those emails. For example, one of those emails was Clinton campaign chair talking about "Needy latinos." Not a single word printed in the Times, the Washington Post or any mainstream media outlet. However, Trump says something 20 years ago and it becomes front-page news for literally a week. Given that one of the themes of this election was "racism" -- the characterization of the two people to which Podesta was referring would be considered relevant considering claims of racism were being made against Trump. However, imagine if a "reputable" news organization dug into the Clinton Foundation's apparent irregularities with the gusto with which they covered Trump's purported sexual harassment. For example, The Daily Beast published a story in October called "All of Donald Trump's Accusers: A Timeline of Every Alleged Grope."[2] Now to their credit, they did use the word "alleged," however, if you look at their coverage of the Clinton Foundation, they were almost apologetic. For example, "Hey Hillary, It's Past Time to Shut Down the Clinton Foundation. It does great work. But in political terms, it's an albatross."[3] The writer then goes on to complain about how Judicial Watch is scrutinizing the Foundation. The entire point of that piece and those similar is that the Clinton's should shut down the foundation because it's red meat for right-wing investigation and thus politically unhelpful. Not a single word about the allegation of pay-to-play or any number of ethical issues (such as the Foundation paying for Chelsea's wedding.[4].) Interesting that only Fox and the NYPost reported this, despite this being hugely unethical and probably illegal and germane to the question of Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and ethics as well as interesting to the IRS as well as donors who ostensibly are donating to charity. Jenna Bush drinking underage in Austin during the Bush administration got more coverage on CNN than what approaches embezzlement by Chelsea Clinton.[5] The purpose of this comment is to point out that those on the right who are typically targeted by fake news are so gullible to it because there is a large percentage of stories in the mainstream media that are anti-conservative yet there ARE substantial stories that the media either ignores or glosses over when it comes to the left. Chelsea Clinton potentially embezzling millions of charitable contributions is a huge story that at least warrants investigation. Sanders supporting DNC activist Seth Rich gets murdered, the media calls it a robbery despite nothing being taken, yet no enterprising reporter seems interested in digging any deeper?[6] What that means is that there is a market demand for more information about the stories that are hinted at but aren't fully reported. The left, on the other hand has plenty of well-reported anti-right news to read with mainstream outlets, thus their appetite for information is mostly satisfied. [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-donald-trump-s-accusers-a-timeline-of-every-alleged-grope-and-assault.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-dona... [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary-it-s-past-time-to-shut-down-the-clinton-foundation.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary... [4] http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation-to-help-pay-for-wedding-emails/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation... [5] http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_death_of_seth_rich/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_deat...

russdill 10y ago
Hi, thanks so much for a reasoned and intelligent response. It's very hard sometimes to see the point of view of the other side so I really appreciate the time you spent here. As far as emails go, you can check out politifact for the sources that have been used to say that the Russians were involved: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/... It is a fact that that is the statement for Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as well as many other agencies (17, which you can see listed). I'm noticing here you have left off the beginning of the quote, without putting a […]. The beginning of the quote is "Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the". While Hillary has lied in the debates and has been called out for it, there is no doubt that the above is a truthful statement, that is the position of the US intelligence community. And yes, claiming that oh, maybe they aren't real is a bit disingenuous. Of course some fake stuff could be slipped in, but given the lack of major revelations within the emails, it seems pretty doubtful. On the other side of the coin, your story here is that there was so much dirt in the emails and the foundation, etc, but it wasn't widely reported, so the right resorted to fake news instead? That makes zero sense to me. If there is dirt that the media failed to report, why bother making up fake news? Reading into your links, I can see why people resorted to fake news. Take the Clinton Foundation paying for weddings, living expenses, etc. The WikiLeaks email discusses an investigation of a alleged wrongdoing, not a wrongdoing itself. I'm sure there are Trump campaign emails where they discuss the alleged rape of a 13 year old. Would you think such emails are proof? No, of course not, it makes perfect sense for them to discuss the allegations and (then) pending trial. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the discussion of allegations was 4 years ago. Did something come of the allegation? I haven't seen anything. The reason it wasn't reported is that it's a non-story. You can actually go and read the financial reports of the Clinton Foundation (something you cannot do of the Trump foundation incidentally). The other big issue here is that fake news has not only been enormously popular on the right this election cycle, it has been leveraged by the campaign, including Trump (such as the "Blumenthal" quote) and his children. Donald Jr being particularly susceptible to retweeting fake news. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls-totally-obvious-fake-hillary-email-conspiracy.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls...