• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Lying Liars of Emily's List

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not especially a fan of Joe Sestak, but he was the victim of a lying ad put up by Emily's List.

Emily’s List ad warps the meaning of ‘truth’

The battle between former representative Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) and former White House aide Katie McGinty may be history, as McGinty on April 26 won the Democratic nomination to face incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the fall. But we still would like to examine this television ad because it demonstrates a disturbing trend — what our old colleague Mark Stencel has called the “weaponization of fact checking.”
In this case, Women Vote, an arm of Emily’s List, a Political Action Committee that seeks to elect pro-choice Democratic women, is using words “true” and “truth” and even cites a fact checking organization to advance a deeply misleading claim. The group got away with it because television stations in Pennsylvania kept running the ad even though the Sestak campaign provided evidence that it was false. . . .

Readers always should be wary when political attack ads use the word “truth” and cite fact checkers. The television stations that refused to pull this ad should be ashamed of themselves — as should Emily’s List. This is simply a sleazy way to win a campaign.
[h=3]Four Pinocchios[/h]
pinocchio_4.jpg





 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
30,717
Reaction score
15,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not especially a fan of Joe Sestak, but he was the victim of a lying ad put up by Emily's List.

Emily’s List ad warps the meaning of ‘truth’

The battle between former representative Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) and former White House aide Katie McGinty may be history, as McGinty on April 26 won the Democratic nomination to face incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the fall. But we still would like to examine this television ad because it demonstrates a disturbing trend — what our old colleague Mark Stencel has called the “weaponization of fact checking.”
In this case, Women Vote, an arm of Emily’s List, a Political Action Committee that seeks to elect pro-choice Democratic women, is using words “true” and “truth” and even cites a fact checking organization to advance a deeply misleading claim. The group got away with it because television stations in Pennsylvania kept running the ad even though the Sestak campaign provided evidence that it was false. . . .

Readers always should be wary when political attack ads use the word “truth” and cite fact checkers. The television stations that refused to pull this ad should be ashamed of themselves — as should Emily’s List. This is simply a sleazy way to win a campaign.
[h=3]Four Pinocchios[/h]
pinocchio_4.jpg






Not particularly surprising given the ethical validation of that kind of ad in today's political climate seems to depend on how successful it has been.
As Harry Reid said about one of his own actions ... "It worked, didn't it?"
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Politicians have always lied, it's just that now they have the media helping them.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Not particularly surprising given the ethical validation of that kind of ad in today's political climate seems to depend on how successful it has been.
As Harry Reid said about one of his own actions ... "It worked, didn't it?"

Sleaze usually does, especially when it is repeated over and over! Since truth and politics have become diametrically opposed, what's a "gruber" to believe? :mrgreen: I had an aunt tell me years ago that if something is printed in the newspaper, it must be true or they wouldn't be allowed to say it. That type of thinking has just been carried over to today's media, IMO. :shock:
 
Top Bottom