Earlier this week Axios reported on the Democrats’ real fake news gambit: “Writers for a D.C.-based media operation run by prominent Democratic operatives are behind a sprawling network of ostensible local media outlets churning out Democrat-aligned news content in midterm battleground states[.]” It’s an interesting and well-researched story written up in the dumbed down Axios form by Lachlan Markay and Thomas Wheatley. They found that David Brock was a key operative and fundraiser for the American Independent, “a Washington-based progressive news outfit” that appears on each of the sites’ mastheads.
Reading it at the time, I wondered. Aren’t those “local media outlets” redundant? Minnesota escapes the net, but how would a Minnesota-based outlet differ from the Star Tribune? The Star Tribune works the beat 24/7 with approximately infinite resources at its disposal. Is this something more than another vehicle for Brock’s self-promotional and fundraising prowess?
And while we’re on the subject, I wonder which would be more fake — a Twin Cities Times fed by Brock’s “progressive news” or the Star Tribune? Which would be more effective at promoting the Democrats’ party line? In the Twin Cities Brock’s real fake news would at the least be superfluous.
Axios headlined its story “Democrats’ swing-state local news ploy.” The Daily Mail has picked up the Axios story and done it up Daily Mail style in “Democrats are operating a series of 51 ‘fake news’ websites pushing left-wing stories in toss-up states in a bid to turn the midterms in their favor, shocking investigation finds.” The Daily Mail links to Gabe Kaminksky’s Daily Caller story “‘Propaganda’: Dem Operatives Are Placing Stories In Network Of Pop-Up Local Media Outlets To Sway The Midterms.”