A few minutes ago, I checked my reddit and saw that someone had accused/not-accused me of being a shill for Hillary. Okay, we’ve all been there, this had some extra verbiage, though, which caught my eye.
Now I'm sure you're not a paid operative of the Clinton campaign, yourself, but you need to acknowledge that its now proven fact that Hillary pays people to promote her online, in forums like just like these.
And this person pointed to Mike Cernovich's "article" on the 5 biggest scoops from the DNC leaks. And, of course, since it pertains to my status as a shill, I gravitated to the second “biggest scoop.” (Also, who cares about Chuck Todd?) That scoop? That Hillary definitely does pay shills. It quotes this tweet:
Now, here’s the thing about the wikileaks stuff. They’ve actually got a pretty decent search engine. You can enter in, “Yes Super PAC Paying” and find the email in question pretty easily. Here we go. "Re: FNS 4-24-16"
The email starts off:
Ends with some dumb story about eagles
Which is actually a reply to an earlier email from the same guy. Actually, the chain is 6 emails long, all from the same guy. The offending passage is in the penultimate email — right after the eagles. (Before the eagles if you’re reading chronologically, after the eagles if you read from top down.) This is in a section headed: “Panel on Dems path forward.” So, were they talking to young Democrats? Was this an admission to young Democrats that they were paying people for online activism.
As I look at the email, it starts to sound like a summary. But, are they summarizing a panel discussion? A google search for “Panel on Dems path forward” doesn’t give me anything obvious. Then, I notice the third email down looks like it’s a Debbie Wasserman Schultz interview. Summary.
I think to myself, “could FNS stand for Fox News Summary?” Back to Google. Searched, “fox news panel april 24 2016 democrat.”
Fox News April 24, 2016. Darn it, actually, I think FNS stands for Fox News Sunday. Close enough, though. Anything about paying supporters?
DOMENECH: I think it -- I think it is going to make it tougher. We saw this week reporting from "The Daily Beast" that a pro-Clinton super PAC had paid more than a million dollars to have supporters of her online push back against Bernie supporters on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and places like that. It's -- it’s a sign of how hard it is to get people to support Hillary Clinton among the younger set.
Ben Domenech of the Federalist. Who was summarizing a report from the Daily Beast for Fox News Sunday. Yeah, this email, with all the damaging bullet points, was summarizing the Fox News Show that his boss, DWS, appeared on. It was not actually a bullet point of the DNC admitting they paid online trolls.
Oh, and the eagles?
And our power player of the week: two baby eaglets draw new attention to an outdoor laboratory here in Washington.
So, to answer your question, Cernovich, the reason the media isn’t all over the “fact” that Hillary pays online supporters is that they don’t generally tend to report on summaries of other journalists and pundits on Fox News as if they were fact.
Sheesh!