The Lying Liars of Emily's List

[Jack Hays]

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]

 

[bubbabgone]

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]

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]

Politicians have always lied, it's just that now they have the media helping them.

 

[polgara]

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: