More on Jordan Fuchs and the MSM
Yesterday I wrote a post about the latest WaPo fake Trump quote incident. In the post, I looked into the history of Jordan Fuchs, who was the paper’s informant. Fuchs, along with her mentor and promoter Raffensperger, has been defending the Georgia voting system she helped set up in 2020, and dissing those who criticize it. For example, there’s this gem:
Republicans fell into a trap by expecting Brad Raffensperger and Brian Kemp to cheat for them.
With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?
Today we learn a bit more about the activities of Ms. Fuchs:
It appears that Jordan Fuchs, Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, was not only the anonymous source of the Washington Post story — claiming that Trump pressured Georgia election investigator Frances Watson to “find the fraud,” and that if she did, she’d be a “national hero” — but she publicly “confirmed” the story to NBC News on the same day the Washington Post story broke…
…[I]n “confirming” the Post story for which she was the anonymous source, she did not clarify that the comments allegedly made by Trump were not direct quotes. Instead, her “confirmation” appeared to validate the original — and fake — story. This gives credence to the theory that she intentionally deceived the public at President Trump’s expense.
Fuchs wouldn’t be the first, and she wont be the last. Anyone paying attention since 2015, when Trump threw his hat into the presidential ring, should be aware that reports of fake quotes (or in some cases quote paraphrases) have been the Trump opposition’s meat-and-potatoes.
The reason is that they work. The accretion of so many has poisoned the minds of half of America against Trump, and so even if one were to be debunked it doesn’t make a dent in the vast edifice that goes to make many people’s highly negative mental picture of the man and what he’s about.
Most of these reports aren’t even corrected by the media – in the case of this one, for example, it was only a public information request that brought it to late by exhuming it from the cellphone trash folder where it had been placed. And when such a story is corrected, it’s usually done in a stealth manner (no new story, just a change at the old one, and usually the change isn’t highlighted in any way except on the right), and with plenty of “the story was fake but accurate” excuses.
Then on to the next inaccurate story[ies] designed to hurt the right. It’s constant and pervasive – and, as I said, it works. Will the majority of the public ever realize what’s going on? Many years ago I used to think that would happen, if things got bad enough and blatant enough. I still think that, actually, although my definition of “enough” has moved to a much more extreme position, and I believe it may already be too late for any such realization to make a difference even if it were to occur.
As I post over and over we have to have a serious reappraisal of the Sullivan decision. Somebody at some point is going to have to bring suit. I believe the Supreme Court would be willing to take it on.
1.
I share your pessimism about this.
2.
To be clear, I am Spartacus is not referring to a decision by the execrable Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. He is referring to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Ah, the Fuchs name — covered in glory once again:
__________________________________________
Klaus Emil Julius Fuchs (29 December 1911 – 28 January 1988) was a German theoretical physicist and atomic spy who supplied information from the American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union during and shortly after World War II. While at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Fuchs was responsible for many significant theoretical calculations relating to the first nuclear weapons and, later, early models of the hydrogen bomb. After his conviction in 1950, he served nine years in prison in the United Kingdom and then moved to East Germany where he resumed his career as a physicist and scientific leader.
–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
This is a perfect illustration of why evidence of prior bad acts is generally inadmissible against a criminal defendant. It’s hugely prejudicial to the defendant.
Trump’s problem is that prior bad acts absolutely are admissible in politics. A politician like Trump who really does say a lot of crazy things will always be susceptible to lies like
this. I don’t think the problem is NYTimes v. Sullivan either. Actual malice aside, would anyone really want to litigate the difference between “you’ll be a hero” and “you have the most important job in the country?”
Its not fair, but life isn’t fair.
“A politician like Trump who really does say a lot of crazy things will always be susceptible to lies like this.”
What crazy things did Mitt Romney say to make him susceptible? Or John McCain or George W. Bush or Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan?
This is what I mean about arguing in bad faith. Implying that this is a problem only with Trump is flatly deceitful.
Mike
Trump should file a lawsuit against her for 25 million dollars (which she does not have. )
In a “fair” world, it would bankrupt her, good and hard.
Folks like her are free to lie and slander because they know they will never be held to account for their actions.
Trump should also personally sue the “journalists” who wrote the articles in the newspapers, the editors (as individuals) , as well as the media corporate entities. It should be easy to show that the media made little to no efforts to verify the veracity of the accusations made against Trump.
The country is stuck in high school and run by the mean girls’ clique otherwise known as those who live, work, and breathe for the government where they can tell us hicks where we belong. Gossip is always a potent weapon. You have to force yourself to remember not to believe anything an anonymous source says. It requires effort and a force of will.
Remember that people’s perception of someone’s guilt or innocence is almost always proportional to their view of the heinousness of the crime, not the likelihood of actual guilt. That’s why the court system has such elaborate procedures.
Since the “Progressive” media has created a narrative, it is difficult for many people that follow them to let it go, regardless of the truth.
When they are shown a video or hear a recording of what was really said, they say, but that’s what he meant or really thinks.
Perceptions are difficult for most to overcome as Neo’s postings on A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change prove.
Unfortunately, peoples’ perceptions are now called their Own Truths. Much more difficult to change if it is your Own Truth.
I didn’t watch the Oprah interview, but in the teaser for it, she told them to tell their Own Truths which lets people believe their own perceptions are solid ground, unwavering.
Bauxite has a point. Trump, and many other Republicans speak far too frequently off-the-cuff, given that their enemies are often in a position to broadcast what the say to a credulous audience.. Don’t bother saying it isn’t fair… so what? Do you want to win, to communicate your ideas, or let your/our enemies do it for you? Say it short and beyond any possible misinterpretation. Is that too hard? Get an easier job.
Trump should not have bothered to try to be persuasive. That is a part of his weakness of wanting to much to be liked snd admired. He should have ordered her boss to get the review done by a deadline, and brought hell down on him if he didn’t.
You’ll notice that this person had to have been a discretionary appointment courtesy Brad Raffersperger. Heckuva job, GOPe.
Propaganda, slander and lies work when there is no consequence for perpetrating them. The system the founders created relies, in the aggregate, upon a “moral and religious people”. Western religions posit accountability in the afterlife with the individual answerable for their moral transgressions.
Absent God there is only the current and relative moral consensus of the mob. ‘Cancel culture’ being today’s vicious, ideologically driven ostracization.
“Say it short and beyond any possible misinterpretation.” Ray+Van+Dune
“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” Karl Popper
This is because people hear and see through their mind’s ‘filters’, which determines their perception of what has been said.
With Bauxite no matter what the situation it is Trump’s fault. But curiously the actual parties involved dealing falsely with the press are Jordan Fuchs and Rats-ass-burger. Just trying to keep to the basics here.
@Ray+Van+Dune:Trump, and many other Republicans speak far too frequently off-the-cuff, given that their enemies are often in a position to broadcast what the say to a credulous audience…
The media is not above using completely invented quotes when it suits them; and their policy of relying on anonymous leakers encourages the leakers to invent the quotes should the media well of invention be dry… they will splice words together out of order and out of context.
My favorite non-Trump example is the speech President Bush gave where he said explicitly that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States (but that action against him was nonetheless justified). The headline place over that speech was “Bush calls Hussein ‘imminent threat'”.
That headline was an out-and-out lie. Bush said the opposite of that.
And let’s not forget the comedy loophole: “I can see Russia from my house.”
The propaganda works and works fast.
The 2 younger daughters spent our whole dinner explaining that anti-Asian hate crimes are rampant and it’s due to Trump calling it the “China Flu”.
And the high school sent a typical jargon filled virtue signaling email expressing their “solidarity” with the Asian-American community. I won’t get a reply but I suggested that they express solidarity for the hate crimes of Harvard in their racist admissions policies.
It gets old fast though to have to even listen to the drivel.
“Remember that people’s perception of someone’s guilt or innocence is almost always proportional to their view of the heinousness of the crime, not the likelihood of actual guilt. That’s why the court system has such elaborate procedures.” – Frank
Even then, we have serious problems – see: Derek Chauvin, trial of.
If he is lucky enough to be acquitted on all counts (unlikely), at least it is possible that he won’t be dragged out and lynched anyway.
SEE: “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and the trial of Leo Frank.
I keep beating a different drum: Why do people absorb the lies and reject the truth? It’s certainly possible that the Fuchs case is so complicated–which is to say hardly at all–that people will reject trying to understand it. But, in my very recent experience with one person, reject even talking about it if the result might be that Trump didn’t do the Bad Thing.
And see “Sergeant Rutledge”, a movie with Woody Strode in, iirc, the same year that Mockingbird came out, with the same theme.
Even then, we have serious problems – see: Derek Chauvin, trial of.
If he is lucky enough to be acquitted on all counts (unlikely), at least it is possible that he won’t be dragged out and lynched anyway.
SEE: “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and the trial of Leo Frank.
?? The fictional defendant in To Kill a Mockingbird wasn’t lynched; he was shot dead trying to escape from a state prison farm. Leo Frank wasn’t acquitted. He was lynched after the governor commuted his death sentence to life in prison. There hasn’t been a lynching in this country since 1959 and there were hardly any in the dozen years previous.
No Wikipedia page for Jordan Fuchs, following in the tradition of Eric Ciaramella and Ashli Babbitt.
Noted this on FB. Testing mean time to bot deletion of post.
MBunge – I don’t think Democrats got away with as many out-and-out lies about Romney, McCain, etc. If a confidential source had accused McCain or Romney of calling white nationalists fine people or of pressuring a state official to make up votes, or of working with the Russian government to steal an election, no one outside of the progressive fever swamp would have believed it was true. Those lies worked against Trump because they rang true, even I suspect to a lot of people otherwise inclined to support Trump. (Look what happened when they tried to do Kavanaugh the way that they did Trump. Kavanaugh survived because everybody outside of the woke fever swamp knew that the charges were false.)
That’s not to say that McCain and Romney had the right idea. They certainly had their own weaknesses, to which Trump was a reaction. Trump was like a hyper-aggressive boxer stepping into the ring after the previous fighters refused to get off the ropes. At first he looks a lot better and he even landed a big punch in 2016, but over the long run his flailing strategy is a sure loser. (And, unfortunately, the long run is now.)
Those lies worked against Trump because they rang true,
Only to you and ‘the progressive fever swamp’.
“Those lies worked against Trump because they rang true, even I suspect to a lot of people otherwise inclined to support Trump.”
Again, this is not arguing in good faith. They lied about Romney and McCain and the Bushes and Reagan and those lies worked. That they lied more and more blatantly about Trump is irrelevant.
“Look what happened when they tried to do Kavanaugh the way that they did Trump.”
Kavanaugh survived because Trump refused to throw him under the bus. Period. I’d bet money that a President Jeb or a President Marco would have withdrawn Kavanaugh’s nomination. Trump forced the Democrats to lie about Kavanaugh in public, to his face, and gave Kavanaugh and his supporters the chance to rebut those lies. The Republicans who controlled the House for half and the Senate for all of Trump’s term could have done the same damn thing but instead allowed the lies and smears against Trump to go forth almost completely unanswered.
Mike
@MBunge:The Republicans who controlled the House for half and the Senate for all of Trump’s term could have done the same damn thing but instead allowed the lies and smears against Trump to go forth almost completely unanswered.
It’s because Kavanaugh was one of them. The right half of the Swamp thought it was dirty pool for the left half of the Swamp to do that to an insider.
But say whatever you want about Trump, or Tulsi Gabbard.
Bauxite:
“Women in binders.” “Dogs on the car roof.” Wife who rides horses. Family of LDS cultists (wink, wink, nod, nod (polygamists!). Nothing to see about how the media treated Romney, Gov. Milktoast.
Bauxite is the bow tie-wearing, checked pants, country club Montage. It’s all good to just keep loosing to the left. Go Jeb!
While we’re at it, elections administration in Georgia stinks on ice even when they’re not stuffing the ballot boxes. And when I say ‘stinks’, I mean in comparison to what’s the norm in New York.