,
19 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1) His reporting repeatedly has eschewed any actual context and represents the select misreading of randomized facts. Saying this is "accurate" is in itself deception. His singular skill set is in the misuse and manicuring of fact to achieve a desired claim....
2) He is the personification of the old newsroom adage: "I had to shape my facts to fit my story." Calling him a real reporter is an affront to anyone who ever actually labored at the craft. Let's pause to examine one such decontextualization of reality:
3) Two months after receiving the very real personal gain of having Sanders, a national figure, appear on behalf of his wife's personal campaign, Sirota embarked on an attack on O'Rourke, then perceived to be a primary campaign threat to Sanders. Mark you, there is no...
"real reporter" working on any viable ethic who would EVER allow someone he is supposed to covering to deliver a favor for his family member for any reason and then to continue to cover that beat and NO ethical news organization that would allow such a reporter to be maintained..
...on that beat. But putting aside Sirota's inability to achieve any viable boundary between himself and the Sanders campaign, let's examine the core value of his attack: That O'Rourke received the second highest amount of money from the oil industry in the 2018 campaign...
Ergo, O"Rourke is corrupted and in the pocket of the petroleum industry. This is a fact, no doubt, and Sirota is always capable of running wild with a singular fact. And his supporters will always retreat to the simplistic claim that his reporting is "fact." What he can never...
...do is contextualize a fact so that it doesn't serve his preconceived interest. That is what makes real journalism a job for ethical grown-ups. That is what makes real journalism meaningful. Here is the context for Sirota's singular fact: Of all the political races in 2018...
...the Texas Senate campaign drew by far the most interest and support on both sides not only in Texas but from around the nation. Cruz and O'Rourke raised money in excess of any other statewide race. O'Rourke therefore did indeed raise the second highest amount in donations...
...from the oil industry. Cruz, naturally, raised the most. But wait for it, here is context: O'Rourke also raised the most amount of money from EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL SECTOR in America. Get it? His campaign to unseat Cruz was popular with voters REGARDLESS of....
...where they labored. In fact, the ONLY sector in which he trailed Cruz was in fact PETROLEUM, so quite obviously his performance slips when that sector and only that sector considers the candidates. Kind of ruins the power of Sirota's claim to say so....
I mean why reference the other 30-some odd economic sectors for context when doing so will reveal that O'Rourke raised more money from everyone and only faltered slightly when it came to oil. Can't shape a story with that context, so discard it and quickly...
Also be sure and discard the fact that O'Rourke, unlike Cruz, did indeed refuse to take petroleum industry money so that the oil money attributed to him represents the donations of individual oil industry voters -- some executives, but of course, also geologists, engineers...
...rig workers, anyone in that sector. Do you know how many Texans are employed in the petro industry? A third of a million. No, O'Rourke did not turn away the donations of individual Texans or other Americans who work in oil. And when it was argued that under his pledge not....
...to take industry money that he also should have eschewed all individual donations, he withdrew from the pledge. He rightly should have. At that point, the pledge itself is untenable and dispossessing of hundreds of thousands of voters who, believe it or not, may want...
...Beto O'Rourke to beat Ted Cruz for any number of reasons, least of all because they think that O'Rourke will be better for their industry than Ted fucking Cruz. Believe it or not, many Democratic voters, even in Texas, have other problems with Cruz beyond energy policy..
...All of this is careful context with which to evaluate the simple fact that O'Rourke raised the second highest amount of "oil money" in the country. All of this is the meat and mead of good journalism of which Sirota is incapable. It does not serve his skill set or purpose...
...Don't even get me started on that man's deconstruction of the "facts" surrounding the Clinton Foundation in order that he could claim quid pro quos for an A-rated charity. His spectulative and manicured use of facts in that nonsense is enough to shame any honest reporter. So..
...enough with this simple, "he just reported facts" horseshit. If you come at me at that as if it means a fucking thing, you are just blocked. I know the job as it can be and should be. Sirota is incapable of that job. He has the position now for which he is suited.
Oh, one last thing. In any head-to-head in the Democratic primaries between Bernie and O'Rourke, my vote is with DSanders. So put the dumbass partisan defenses away. I was a journalist; I respect the craft. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Sirota is fucking wrong and dishonest.
