Fake news from the Huffington Post: “In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks”
This ridiculously titled article from the Huffington Post is called “In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks.”
For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I’d like to point out this blog entry that I wrote, which is called “Here are 1,342 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.”
I’ve seen a huge number of examples of Obama supporters being in denial about the horrible things that he has done, and this Huffington Post article is one of the best examples.
Many of the things on my list consist of Obama continuing the very same things that liberals hated Bush for doing. They hated Bush for doing those things, but they totally ignore the fact that Obama did the exact same things.
Giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton? It was scandal when Bush did it. But liberals like to pretend that Obama never did the exact same thing.
Illegally engaging in military interventionism without approval from Congress? It was a scandal when Bush did it. But liberals like to pretend that Obama never did the exact same thing.
Creating a government faith based program? It was a scandal when Bush did it. But when Obama continued and even expanded the program, there was not a peep from liberals.
Unwarranted wiretapping? Horrible when Bush did it. But perfectly fine when Obama did it.
And on and on and on.
MSNBC fake news reporter Brian Williams falsely says Cubans prefer using donkey carts instead of cars
I agree with the plaintiff, Naked Capitalism. The Washington Post’s article accusing Naked Capitalism of being “fake news” did not cite any actual examples of “fake news” from Naked Capitalism. Also, the Washington Post did not interview anyone from Naked Capitalism when it wrote the article in question. The Washington Post’s irresponsible behavior meets all the criteria that are necessary for a defamation lawsuit. If anyone here is guilty of publishing “fake news,” it is the Washington Post:
Website Labeled ‘Fake News’ Threatens To Sue WaPo For Defamation
December 5, 2016
One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.
A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.
“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”
Naked Capitalism is a finance and economics blog started in December 2006, with a stated goal of “shedding light on the dark and seamy corners of finance.”
Moody demands a retraction of the story and a public apology from WaPo in the letter, threatening a suit if the paper does not comply. He lists a series of damages to the site itself, as well as the writers and editors associated with the site; these include “ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement” for writers and editors.
Other mainstream news outlets criticize The Washington Post for running the story.
“The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique,” Adrian Chen wrote in The New Yorker regarding the WaPo story. “But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess.”
And Patrick Maines criticized the story in The Hill, calling it “perhaps the shoddiest piece of feature writing since Rolling Stone published its blatantly false story about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.”
“You have made damaging false accusations against Naked Capitalism,” Moody concludes in the letter. “Please immediately remove these from the web and provide an equivalent opportunity to respond. Please see the attached concerning your obligation to retain documents and electronically stored information relating to Fake News. I look forward to hearing from you within three business days.”
After CBS News writer David Leavitt said he felt calmed by the idea of Donald Trump dying, CBS News falsely claimed that Leavitt had never worked for them
David Leavitt is a writer for CBS News. Here is the CBS News page that shows the articles that he has written for them: https://web.archive.org/web/20150905060326/http://boston.cbslocal.com/tag/david-leavitt/
Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’
November 17, 2016
What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.
Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he’s British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. “South Park” lawsuit last year.
But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump’s son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner’s faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.
In light of concerns that stories like Horner’s may have affected the presidential election, and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action against deceptive outlets, Intersect called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake news. This transcript has been edited for clarity, length and — ahem — bad language.
You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?
Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.
You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?
My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.
Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.
I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].
You think you personally helped elect Trump?
I don’t know. I don’t know if I did or not. I don’t know. I don’t know.
I guess I’m curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the election — especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs — why didn’t you stop? Why keep writing?
I didn’t think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn’t messing them up as much as I wanted — but I never thought he’d actually get elected. I didn’t even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should’ve seen this coming — everyone assumed Hillary [Clinton] would just get in. But she didn’t, and Trump is president.
Speaking of Clinton — did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary Johnson’s, for that matter? (Horner’s Facebook picture shows him at a rally for Johnson.)
No. I hate Trump.
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that “no joke . . . in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it’s the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans.” That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don’t fact-check.
But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?
It’s great for anybody who does anything with satire — there’s nothing you can’t write about now that people won’t believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line — and people went along with it!
Facebook and Google recently announced that they’d no longer let fake-news sites use their advertising platforms. I know you basically make your living from those services. How worried are you about this?
This whole Google AdSense thing is pretty scary. And all this Facebook stuff. I make most of my money from AdSense — like, you wouldn’t believe how much money I make from it. Right now I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense.
I know ways of getting hooked up under different names and sites. So probably if they cracked down, I would try different things. I have at least 10 sites right now. If they crack down on a couple, I’ll just use others. They could shut down advertising on all my sites, and I think I’d be okay. Plus, Facebook and AdSense make a lot of money from [advertising on fake news sites] for them to just get rid of it. They’d lose a lot of money.
But if it did really go away, that would suck. I don’t know what I would do.
Thinking about this less selfishly, though — it might be good if Facebook and Google took action, right? Because the effects you’re describing are pretty scary.
Yeah, I mean — a lot of the sites people are talking about, they’re just total BS sites. There’s no creativity or purpose behind them. I’m glad they’re getting rid of them. I don’t like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do — I spend more time on it. There’s purpose and meaning behind it. I don’t just write fake news just to write it.
So, yeah, I see a lot of the sites they’re listing, and I’m like — good. There are so many horrible sites out there. I’m glad they’re getting rid of those sites.
I just hope they don’t get rid of mine, too.
Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2
November 6, 2016
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received fewer endorsements from the editorial boards of the nation’s largest newspapers than any major-party presidential candidate in history.
Among the top 100 largest newspapers in America, just two — the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville — endorsed Trump. The Review-Journal is owned by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has spent millions trying to elect Trump.
“Donald Trump, despite all of his faults, is best suited to blow up the inbred corruption of the Washington-New York elites,” the Times-Union wrote in a Sunday editorial.
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has received endorsements from 57 newspaper editorial boards across the country, including papers such as the Dallas Morning News, the Arizona Republic and the San Diego Union-Tribune, conservative bastions that have almost always backed Republicans.
Four newspapers have taken the unusual step of explicitly advising readers to vote against Trump, even if they cannot bring themselves to recommend Clinton.
Trump’s “reckless ignorance is more informed by disturbing Internet conspiracy theories than evidence, wisdom or reason,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote this weekend. Clinton “suffers from an inflated sense of entitlement and a well-earned lack of trust.”
But, the paper concluded: “Job One: Reject Trump.”
USA Today, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and Salt Lake City’s Deseret News all advised votes against the Republican presidential nominee.
The rejection of Trump is even more lopsided than the 1972 presidential contest, when the vast majority of papers backed Richard Nixon’s reelection bid. Only 7 percent of papers that endorsed that year picked George McGovern, the Democratic nominee. This year, only 3 percent of papers are backing Trump.
Even Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson has had more success with editorial boards than Trump. This weekend, the Charleston Post & Courier became the fourth paper to back Johnson.
“No, Mr. Johnson won’t win the White House Tuesday. But if he gains a substantial vote total, that could help spark the liberation of our politics from the two-party monopoly now failing Americans,” the paper wrote.
Regarding blacks assaulting a white guy because he voted for Trump, CNN commentator Symone Sanders sarcastically says “Oh my goodness – poor white people!”
Here’s the video of blacks assaulting a white guy because he voted for Trump:
And here’s the video of CNN commentator Symone Sanders sarcastically saying “Oh my goodness – poor white people!”
Snopes says the reason that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles is because of “safety concerns”
Snopes recently published this article, which addresses claims by other sources which say that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles in order to avoid offending Muslims. Snopes says that, yes, Sweden did indeed recently ban Christmas lights on street poles, but also says that, no, it was not to avoid offending Muslims, and that, instead, it was for “safety concerns.”
I don’t know how long Sweden has been putting Christmas lights on street poles, but I’m guessing that they’ve been doing it for many decades. So the claim that such lights have all of a sudden become a “safety concern” is something that I am very skeptical of.
If anything, the recent worldwide switch from incandescent bulbs to LEDs should make the lights less of a safety concern, because the newer lights generate less heat, weigh less, and use less electricity.
On the other hand, given the many other recent changes to its traditional way of life that Sweden has made in order to avoid offending Muslims, such as its recent adoption of segregated swimming pools, it seems quite plausible that the real reason for its recent ban on Christmas lights on street poles is indeed to avoid offending Muslims.
Stupid front page headline from the New York Times: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”
NY Times Headline Epitomizes MSM Myopia Over Trump
November 10, 2016
Want to understand the bubble in which the elite, liberal media lives? Check out the banner headline of today’s New York Times: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”
On today’s Morning Joe, Mark Halperin nailed it: “Look at the headline of this story. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not “disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House” or “the country votes for fundamental change.” The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened.
Scarborough also reported that Halperin and Nate Silver had been savaged by leading-but-unnamed MSM reporters and major news anchors for asserting—not that Trump would win—but that he even had a chance to win.
MARK HALPERIN: Look at the headline of this story. Look at the headline of this story. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not “disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House” or “the country votes for fundamental change.” The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened. It’s amazing. It’s amazing to me that this is the headline of the New York Times.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Look at this. Look at this. This is staggering. It really is, Mark. I’m glad you brought this up.
HALPERIN: It’s The Onion.
JOE: This shows that the editors of the New York Times–I have the greatest respect for. They don’t get it.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: This is about them!
JOE: This is a Saturday Night Live skit. You went to a cocktail party the night before and you decided to write this.
HALPERIN: When I thought Trump had a chance to lose, which I did. But I thought he had a chance to win it. I said to liberals, he’s going to get 42 million votes. 42 million people are going to vote for him. What are they voting for? And that this is their headline.
MIKA: That’s their newsroom [Ed.: i.e., not the editorial page, but the supposedly objective news side of the paper.]
HALPERIN: If a Democratic candidate who was said to have a 10% of winning by the New York Times had ended up winning and winning red states as Trump won blue states, I don’t think that would have been the headline.
HALPERIN: And I’ll just say again, the responsibility of journalists is to not report on their biases. It’s to go out and understand the country through the prism of the election and say why are people feeling the way they’re feeling? I am just stunned at how people are reacting.
Before the election, Newsweek sent bookstores advance printed copies of its magazine declaring Hillary the winner, but no such advance printed copies declaring Trump the winner
With major sporting events, like the World Series or the Super Bowl, companies that manufacture t-shirts will manufacture separate shirts delcaring both teams as the winner before the event takes place. As soon as the winner is declared, they immediately start selling the shirts with the winner, and put the shirts with the loser into the trash.
Before yesterday’s election, Newsweek printed up advance paper copies declaring the winner and sent them to bookstores. But they only printed and sent to bookstores advance paper copies declaring Hillary the winner. They did not print and send to bookstores any advance paper copies declaring Trump the winner.
Here is a photograph of an advance paper copy declaring Hillary the winner, which was photographed by a bookstore employee before the election. I got this photograph from this source:
Newsweek tried to defend itself by showing this other image, which it claims proves that it had advance covers for both Trump and Hillary. However, these covers are just computer images, not printed paper copies. I got these computer images from this source:
Newsweek even admitted that it only printed and sent to bookstores advance paper copies declaring Hillary as the winner, and not Trump, before the election.
Title of Reuters article says Hillary is an “enemy” of Wall St, but the actual article says “Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries have been sending her $10 for every $1 they contributed to Trump”
This article from Reuters is called
“Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s favorite enemy”
However, the actual text of the article says
“Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries have been sending her $10 for every $1 they contributed to Trump, according to a Reuters analysis.”
This is from 2013. Although both CNN reporters were in the same parking lot (note that the same traffic goes by both of them), they pretended to be thousands of miles away from each other:
CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails suggest she gave Clinton campaign debate questions
October 31, 2016
CNN quietly cut ties with Donna Brazile, acting Democratic National Committee chair and a longtime contributor on the cable news network, after hacked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that she had provided the Hillary Clinton campaign with questions in advance of Democratic primary debates hosted by CNN.
According to a spokeswoman for the network, CNN accepted Brazile’s resignation on Oct. 14.
The emails showed that Brazile — whose role as a CNN contributor was suspended in July after she took over for departing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz — shared with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Clinton before the CNN Democratic Debate in Flint, Mich., in March, and another before a CNN town hall Columbus, Ohio, a week later.
The network vehemently denied giving Brazile access to debate questions in advance.
“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” the spokeswoman, Lauren Pratapas, said in a statement. “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”
Brazile has appeared as a guest on Yahoo News’ live coverage of campaign events, including the recent presidential debates, but was not paid for any of those appearances.
Brazile did not respond to a request for comment.
On Twitter, she referred media to her previous statement the emails exposed by WikiLeaks (“This is exactly what the Russians intended to do,” Brazile said on Oct. 11, “and they’re doing it”), thanked CNN and wished her former colleagues well.
When it comes to taking time off from campaigning, CNN reporter Dana Bash holds a very different standard for Trump than she does for Clinton
Here’s another great example of media bias at its finest:
Trump Shuts Down CNN Crank for Questioning Him on “Taking Time Off” to Attend Hotel Opening
Donald Trump SHUTS DOWN liberal CNN host Dana Bash after ridiculous biased question.
October 26, 2016
Dana Bash: For people who say you’re taking time out of swing states to go do this, you say?
Donald Trump: I say the following. You have been covering me for the last, long time. I did yesterday 8 stops and 3 major speeches. And I’ve been doing this for weeks straight. I left for here for an hour-and-a-half. I’m leaving here and going to North Carolina, then I’m going to Florida, then I’m going up to New Hampshire. For you to ask me that question is actually very insulting because Hillary Clinton does one stop and then goes home and sleeps. And yet you ask me that question. I think it’s a very rude question.
CNN cut big 3rd party support from debate focus group coverage, participant says
October 7, 2016
A participant in the CNN focus group conducted Tuesday during this year’s only vice presidential debate says the cable network omitted a strong showing of third-party support.
Justin Smith says participants were asked after the debate ended if they support the ticket led by Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump or a third-party candidate, with 12 indicating third-party support, five backing Clinton and two Trump.
Such a result would not reflect national polling, and Smith wrote on Facebook “once they saw the response,” the third party option was dropped in favor of “undecided” — with the second question asked twice before being aired live, yielding 11 votes for “undecided.”
“As you see a majority here in this room at the University of Richmond still undecided,” CNN reporter Pamela Brown told anchor Wolf Blitzer in the segment that aired.
“Interesting stuff,” Blitzer said.
In 2005, consenting adult Alicia Machado had sex when she knew that she was being recorded for a Spanish reality TV show called “La Granja VIP.” The recording of her having sex was later broadcast on that show.
Now, the New York Times claims that the tape of Machado having sex is not a sex tape:
Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence)
September 30, 2016
Donald J. Trump went on a morning Twitter tirade on Friday, denouncing the former Miss Universe winner he once shamed for gaining weight and directing the American public to seek out a sex tape that he said she participated in as evidence of her sordid past.
The attack, in a flurry of tweets on the topic posted from 5:14 to 5:30 a.m. Eastern time, was the latest effort by Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discredit the beauty queen, Alicia Machado, after Hillary Clinton used her as an example of his sexism during the debate on Monday night. Fact-checkers have found no evidence that Ms. Machado, who was featured in Playboy, appeared in a sex tape. Her critics may be referring to a risqué scene that she appeared in on a reality television show.
Mr. Trump maintained this week that Ms. Machado’s weight and attitude were problematic after she won the 1996 pageant and his campaign circulated information about her previous brushes with the law.
On Friday, Mr. Trump suggested that there was more to be revealed about Ms. Machado and offered the theory that Mrs. Clinton, his Democratic opponent, helped her attain American citizenship.
Donald Trump tweet: “Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?”
Mr. Trump had been modulating his tone in the weeks before the debate, but his uneven performance appears to have caused him to lash out. He has increasingly flirted with leveling more personal attacks on Mrs. Clinton’s history of marital problems and he has doubled-down on his charges that the news media is rigging the election.
While Mr. Trump had little to say when Mrs. Clinton brought up Ms. Machado on the debate stage, he said in his Friday tweets that she “duped” Mrs. Clinton. He called this a sign of bad judgment.
“Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an ‘angel’ without checking her past, which is terrible!” Mr. Trump wrote.
Ms. Machado, who told CNN this week that she is “not a saint girl,” was also accused in the late 1990s of abetting an attempted murder committed by her then-boyfriend, who shot a family member in Caracas, Venezuela.
She was said to have been seen driving a getaway car, but did not face charges.
Since he reshuffled his campaign’s leadership in August, Mr. Trump’s team has tried to instill a more disciplined approach that has been heavier on scripted speeches and policy. Twitter, however, has continued to be an outlet for Mr. Trump to vent without a filter, and rants such as the one unleashed on Friday undermine his efforts to appear presidential.
Backers of Mrs. Clinton seized on Twitter storm as more evidence that Mr. Trump is unfit to be president.
Correct the Record, a “super PAC” that supports the Democratic nominee, suggested that Mr. Trump was showing frustration about a recent batch of weak polls.
And John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, advised that Mr. Trump might want to resist the urge to grab his phone when he wakes up “in the middle of the night.”
Mrs. Clinton responded later in the morning on Twitter by calling Mr. Trump “unhinged” and said his treatment of Ms. Machado was unwarranted.
Yesterday, I made this post about how debate “moderator” Lester Holt was biased against Donald Trump.
Now we have some more interesting news along the same issue of bias. The Commission on Presidential Debates had just made the following admission:
“Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall.”
This is completely in line with the following comment that Trump had made right after the debate:
“And they also had, gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room… No, but I wonder, was that on purpose? Was that on purpose? But I had a mic that wasn’t worked properly, with, working properly within the room.”
Lester Holt asked Trump 15 questions, Clinton 2 questions
September 27, 2016
A close analysis of the transcript of the first presidential debate on Monday night shows that moderator Lester Holt of NBC News asked 15 questions exclusively of Republican nominee Donald Trump, and only 2 questions exclusively of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The analysis, posted on social media and drawing intense attention on Reddit, walks through the entire 90-minute exchange and notes Holt asked six questions of both candidates, in addition to Trump’s 15 and Clinton’s two.
Holt, a newcomer to presidential debate moderation, faced intense pressure from the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media to be tough on Trump. Some explicitly called for Holt to “fact-check” Trump — the implication being that Trump is more ignorant or dishonest — and implied that he would face the same fate as NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon, both of whom were slammed by liberal media critics for the crime of treating both candidates fairly.
Moreover, most of Holt’s questions prompts were overly friendly to Clinton’s point of view, while hostile to Trump. In one of the last exchanges of the debate, for example, Holt strongly implied Trump was a sexist when asking about a past criticism he had made about Clinton lacking a “presidential look.” He also introduced the opening topic of the debate by praising Obama’s economic performance, ignoring the fact that growth never reached 3% under Obama and labor force participation has fallen.
Breitbart News noted that Holt intervened several times to “fact-check” Trump — often erroneously — while never checking Clinton’s facts, even when she was completely wrong, as in her claim that she had never flip-flopped on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In addition, the Washington Examiner‘s Eddie Scarry notes Holt asked Trump six follow-up questions, and none of Clinton, leaving Trump “having to debate the highly anticipated event’s moderator as well as his Democratic opponent.”
Holt Interrupted Trump WAY More Than Clinton In Debate
September 27, 2016
Moderator Lester Holt was much harsher on Republican nominee Donald Trump than he was on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the debate Monday evening.
Holt interrupted Trump a whopping 41 times, either to “fact-check” the Republican nominee, or to ask a follow-up question. Clinton was only interrupted seven times during the course of the 90-minute debate.
Holt interrupted Trump the most during a particularly heated exchange about Trump’s stance on the Iraq war. Both candidates attempted to dodge their former stances. Holt challenged Trump in particular, cutting him off several times to assert the business mogul did indeed support the war in Iraq when it was popular.
Holt interrupted Trump 10 times during the exchange, and demanded at least five times why Trump thought that he had better judgement than Clinton.
CNN adds the word “racial” to Trump’s quote.