I can’t help but notice that the new Washington Post-certified “master list” of “fake news”
outlets does not include any of the media organs overseen by David
Brock, one of the leading propagandists of the modern era. Why is this?
Virtually everything that David Brock does would qualify as “fake news”
under any objective criteria. He runs a bunch of websites that may seem
to the naked eye to be legitimate “news” sources, but in reality are
just Democratic Party / Hillary agitprop conveyor belts. This is well
known and accepted, even by Hillary’s inner-circle, many of whom view Brock with suspicion.
Bountiful
“fake news” can be found at the propaganda outlet Media Matters, the
premier Brock-connected entity (he founded it). To take just one
example, Eric Boehlert, the main public face of Media Matters,
relentlessly denied over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign
that Hillary was under criminal investigation. He denounced this notion
as “fictitious,” and launched a relentless “targeted harassment”
campaign against the New York Times for reporting otherwise. It turned
out that Boehlert was 100% wrong and the NYT was 100% right — Hillary
really was under active felony criminal investigation, from July 10,
2015 to July 5, 2016 and then again from October 28, 2016 to November 6,
2016. Those facts are no longer in dispute.
Hence, wasn’t Boehlert promoting “fake news”? He was putting false,
distorted information out onto the internet, thereby actively
misinforming readers. If that doesn’t qualify as “fake news” — what
would? Please explain why the term “fake news” would not apply to
Boehlert’s conduct.
-- Michael Tracey, "If You Really Want To Get Rid Of 'Fake News,' Start With David Brock" (MEDIUM).
