,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Let’s assume this is right and ignore that this only goes in one direction, what does that have to do with publishing details about his IG posts, his jobs, his background, and his legal issues?
How were those relevant?
How were those relevant?
They could have published an article stating the video was traced back to a Facebook group run by a blue-collar Trump supporter in New York. That’s one sentence. No one would be complaining.
These journalists keep defending that sentence as if that was all that was published.
These journalists keep defending that sentence as if that was all that was published.
The point here was not to simply note the source of the video. It was to punish this guy as a message to anyone else who might publish negative or misleading content about a politician they like (note they won’t be searching out who makes misleading resistance videos).
