Updated: March 17th

---

Those among us who are in the public eye, those we call public figures, now think they’re entitled both to influence public opinion, under some false pretense of journalistic impartiality, block off unwanted dissenters, and claim that critiques by those they blocked amount to some kind of obsessive interest. Well… no. It’s funny how free speech works…

Public figures, today, are making use of their pulpits not only to sway public opinion, but to disseminate false information that benefits one candidate in a hotly contested election cycle. It’s not only dishonest and contributes to public disenfranchisement and the thinning out of the media’s own ranks, but, mostly, the further degradation of what shred of democracy we may still have.

If you’re going to remain in the public eye and act as one of the public’s most vocal analysts, then you will be held accountable for some of the things you say to your readers. When a pundit decides to tell his trusting public that one can still go to an HBCU for the amount of a Pell Grant, I will do my homework and put out the results. It follows that when Matthew Yglesias writes a piece in favor of free public college and follows up with another against, using tropes created by a different pundit, I will call them both out on their dishonesty.

When any pundit takes to their publication or the airwaves and contributes to the media bias by making statements that are pure conjecture in a false attempt to balance out his criticism of his favorite candidate, I will call him out on it. My free speech is no less precious than yours.

As for using the “pox on both houses” tack, it doesn’t follow that Sanders must be lambasted because one just criticized Hillary Clinton for something she said. There will be days when one candidate is the recipient of all the criticism and nothing is said of the other. So far, there have been many more days when Sanders is unfairly criticized and intentionally misinterpreted, than there have been days when Clinton was roundly criticized for things she said that should have been flagged as highly problematic.

My platform may be very limited, but nevertheless, I consider it my duty to call you all on BS when you put it out, just as much as you consider it yours to put it out. I will use all the tools at my disposal to show the public how distorted your statements are. If that comes in the form of publicly available video, blog posts, or articles by other pundits, then I will include clips and cross-reference with refuting facts. When I catch you in a lie, subtle or whopper, I will write about it. That’s how being in the public eye works.

I wrote about Paul Krugman’s ridiculous lie about Senator Bernie Sanders’ Twitter timeline being “ugly” last week. I wrote about Charles Blow and his misstatement of the cost of HBCUs in the context of Bernie Sanders’ free public college plan. Most HBCUs cost more than $7K per year. Many cost closer than $20K. Blow’s video was nothing more than an attempt to scare away young Black voters. Both pundits know full well how Republicans have been using the tactic of repeating lies, knowing full well that the vast majority of the public doesn’t fact check people they trust. It’s a reprehensible behavior, no matter who engages in it.

The New Civil Rights Movement website claims that Donald Trump has received $2 Billion in free advertising from the media. I’ve not checked the claim, but even if it is only half true, that’s a lot of interference with Democracy:

“Trump’s free coverage earned him “$400 million worth of free media last month, about what John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign.”

If anyone still has any lingering doubt that Trump knows exactly what he is doing… https://t.co/0xxDHFIJRv pic.twitter.com/eEBQJQG9FA

— Julia Atkin (@JAtkin500) March 15, 2016

Donald Trump is news, but not every word Trump utters deserves to make headlines. “

We no longer have media watchdogs. The media has become highly partisan. That hurts us all.

---

 

Update:

In a new video published today, due to reader blow back – pun definitely intended – Charles Blow explains the “relationship” between the editorial and news sides of the business at the New York Times. Of course, that doesn’t cover the fact that what he writes are opinion pieces and not, as he states, articles, nor does it explain a definite bent when it comes to a certain candidate or how he is not influenced by forces inside or even outside the paper. Without there being any pressure from a candidate, peer pressure in the workplace can be very strong, especially when the newspaper endorsed a candidate exceedingly early on in the process as it failed to properly cover any of their opponent at that time. Anyway, here is Charles Blow, defending the hermetic bubble he has constructed for himself.

---

Message to readers:  Thanks to many readers like you, my family averted homelessness this week. We are very grateful for the reprieve afforded us by your generous contributions.

We are not out of the woods, and are still very far from meeting the goal of our GoFundMe campaign to help lift my family out of the vicious and expensive cycle of living in temporary housing. Any support you are able to provide to help us get over this hump is very deeply appreciated.