Most of my analyses have, thus far, been examining organizations and media groups that are more right-wing and engage in content that is blatantly supportive of President Trump, of foreign governments that are supporting Trump’s policies (because they weaken the United States and allows them better maneuverability), or willfully engaging in conspiracy theories of all kinds, regardless of political affiliation. Regardless, the majority of these analyses are right-wing, white nationalist/supremacist, or are otherwise associated with a Conservative line of thought. It is important to note that, which right-wing conspiracies and sentiments are incredibly dangerous and can be more violent, there is a steady rise in more liberal, left-wing and anti-Trump/right-wing conspiracy theories in American politics, with Snopes even detailing to BBC that they, “[in the past week, 09 – 15 April 2017] have debunked many more anti-Republican party stories than pro-Republican ones”.
As well, in the HBO documentary After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News, the documentarians detail how leftist political operatives used fake news and fakery (e.g. creating a false Facebook page detailing how Senatorial candidate Roy Moore desired to bring back prohibition) to influence the 2017 U.S. Senate special election in Alabama. Interestingly, the operative they speak to in Alabama also uses very similar language (comparing fake news to chemical weapons) to the language of Republican political operative Jack Burkman, who is also featured in the documentary.
One site that exemplifies the creation of fake news and clickbait-y content for the political left is The Bipartisan Report.
Essentially, The Bipartisan Report is a website that predominantly reports on political issues and developments within the United States. The site’s “About” page offers little in terms of a mission statement, instead describing much of the site’s details in terms of corrections, sources, and attributions, broadly encompassing a structure similar to that of other news agencies. They write;
“We promptly respond to correct errors in material published… When our journalism is factually correct but the language we used to explain those facts is not as clear or detailed as it should be, the language should be rewritten and a clarification added to the story… We prefer at least two sources for factual information. We prefer sources with firsthand or direct knowledge of the information. A relevant document can sometimes serve as a second source. There are situations in which we will publish information from a single source, but we should only do so after deliberations involving the executive editor, the managing editor and the appropriate department head… We strive to treat sources fairly. This means putting statements we quote into context, and summarizing the arguments of people we quote in ways that are recognizably fair and accurate”
It should be noted, portions of this piece was written back in mid-2020. Upon confirming this information in 2021, it appears the “About Us” section is deleted and no longer available on the site interestingly.
Basically, they are striving towards ideals that they confirm stories before publishing, correct errors when published (and detail that information to readers, and treat all sources fairly by quoting fully. This mission statement that comes across through a reading of the “About” page indicates that they are trying to be a step above other news agencies and be more transparent. However, this does not come across in the actual articles published by the site.
What comes across most predominantly is clickbait and what is also quite popular are conspiracy theories, mistranslations, and sensationalizing headlines, articles, and content overall. The amount of clickbait on the site is extremely prolific, with practically every article headline or content engaging in the activity in some way, shape, or form. The Cambridge Dictionary defines clickbait as, “articles, photographs, etc. on the internet that are intended to attract attention and encourage people to click on links to particular websites”. While the website is small, their reach, like with most of the other agencies I have discussed, is massive, having almost 150 thousand subscribers on Twitter and almost 1.3 million subscribers on Facebook.
Before this deep dive of the Report, however, I would like to say something first about my personal, political views.
Hopefully, by now, it will be clear that I am not a conservative nor do I support President Trump’s stance on virtually any issue. Many of you may be thinking that I am a liberal, which is a tag I won’t deny. However, I am not, nor have ever been, a registered Democrat or Republican Party member nor am I registered with any other political party in the United States nor abroad. I would classify myself as being an independent with a liberal bend that verges into Democratic Socialism on some issues (predominantly on issues pertaining to medicine and health). While I do not have time to go into every economic, political, social, or foreign/domestic policy endeavor I agree or disagree with, I think it is important to share my own broad political sentiments before going into my analysis of this next source and going forward in my analyses of organizations that have a pro and anti-Trump bend or a strong political affiliation so that I may be as fully transparent with you, the reader, as possible.
Partisan or Bipartisan?
To start, the site, despite being around for a short amount of time (evidence provided by the Report indicate activity since 2012), has become very prolific in the art of promulgating false news stories.
Since at least 2016, fact-checkers such as Snopes, PolitFact, and FactCheck (all acclaimed groups that are known for their reliability and veracity as well as being operated by such giants in journalism and academia like the Poynter Institute and the University of Pennsylvania) have documented almost a dozen cases where the Report published false information resulting in it being disseminated widespread or published information that later turned out to be faulty (and probably should not have been published in the first place).
To start, one of the first articles I found in which the Report executed poor judgement was in August of 2016. In their article (which has since been deleted), they claimed, “that Melania Trump, wife of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, had once worked as a call girl before becoming a professional model”.
“stated Suzy [a Slovenian-language gossip columnist] ran a front-page story saying that when Mrs. Trump worked for New York fashion entrepreneur Paolo Zampolli after initially arriving in the United States, she moonlighted for his modeling agency as an escort. The Daily Mail also reported that Zampolli, in no uncertain terms, denied that his modeling agency ever operated as an escort service. The claim, he said, was “f*cking rubbish.” The Daily Mail further acknowledged there was “no evidence to back up these startling claims made in Suzy magazine”
Suzy, which was later sued along with the Daily Mail, settled out of court with Melania and formally apologized, admitting they had no evidence for the claims either. As noted in the article, the Report issued a retraction in addition to giving an apology to the future First Lady. So, what it seems like (because the original article is missing and unavailable to me, I cannot definitively say what other information, if any, the article relied upon) is that the Report saw this story, took it, and repeated what the previous news organizations had already said. Unless they had uncovered another source that gave them the ability to run this story (which it does not seem like they did as it was retracted), then the Report ran this story with a denial and no confirmations other than two untrustworthy news agencies whose articles should always be verified elsewhere.
In October of 2016, the Report once again got caught in Snopes’ crosshairs. In another now deleted article, the Report wrote, “Current Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s alleged wrongdoings have been all over the media… Though there may be some truth behind the reports, even Fox News themselves have reported the Benghazi scandal is a hoax”. While the Report provided transcripts from a Fox News telecast with Shep Smith, which stated:
“After a two-year, $7 million investigation the eighth investigation to date, the authors of the report make no new accusations and provide no new evidence of wrongdoing against the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the report does blame the Obama administration, the CIA, and the U.S. military for responding too slowly to the attack…At no point during the report did Smith say anything painting the investigation as being the “hoax” described in the headline”
while also providing a link to a Media Matters for America article which shows the relevant clip mentioned, effectively proving this story false.
In another October 2016 article, this one published on Halloween, the headline reads, “Florida Moves For FULL RECOUNT Of State Over Massive Voter Fraud,” and details:
“[ABC News investigative journalist Brian Ross] found Trump’s Russian connections to have a bigger role in his life than he’s lead on… One man that Ross spoke to was Sergei Millian, a head of a U.S.-Russian business group. He says he assisted Trump with marketing the sale of his condos in Russia. Millian spoke about all the money Trump made from the Russians back then… Ross repeated with emphasis, “Hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian businessmen?” and Millian responded with a nod and a firm, “Correct””
The Bipartisan Report also posted the story and link on their Facebook page, which resulted in even more public attraction, which thereby gained PolitiFact’s attention. PolitiFact details just how inaccurate the story published by the Report was, writing:
“A website misleadingly claimed that the Sunshine State has pushed for a recount of presidential election results, citing widespread voter fraud… The Tallahassee Democrat reported on Dec. 5 that three Florida residents had filed a lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the state Cabinet and Florida’s 29 Republican electors… The filing alleges that the state’s election results were invalid, contending that voting machines malfunctioned or were hacked, many votes went uncounted and mail-in ballots weren’t included, among other problems. The suit aims to force a recount of votes by insisting Hillary Clinton would have won the election had there been no alleged impropriety… Trump won Florida by almost 113,000 votes, and there has been no proof of “massive voter fraud.” The election results were certified on Nov. 22, with only “minor problems” reported by election officials. Despite what the headline implies, state officials have not pushed for a recount. Under Florida law, a recount is triggered if a candidate wins by 0.5 percent or less. Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton was about 1.4 percent”
To put this more simply, “A trio of Florida voters contested the results, not state officials. Their lawsuit cited potential problems like uncounted or improperly tallied votes and voting machines that didn’t work or were hacked. The lawsuit likely won’t bring a recount — or any action at all — before the Electoral College votes. The headline confounds readers by misrepresenting what the story actually says”. Because of a deliberate attempt to create an incendiary headline, the Report drastically misled people as to what the true facts of the case were.
Another story by the Report, published on the same day, has the headline, “BREAKING: ABC Uncovers MILLIONS Of Payments From Russia To Trump, Campaign Panics”. While the headline and story still shows up via a Google search and is attributed to the Bipartisan Report, the article is no longer included on the website. However, Snopes notes that a similar article published by Occupy Democrats, details much of the same information, stating, “He’s surrounded himself with men with ties close to the Kremlin and the oligarchs that pull the strings behind the scenes… An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has “numerous ties” to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia.
“The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars — what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate—[and] be associated with Donald Trump” says Sergei Millan, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group”.
Both articles insinuates, mostly in their headlines, that there is a larger connection between Trump and Russia, going beyond business interests while claiming that the ABC investigation proves it. However, this is not accurate. As Snopes points out:
“[The month old plus article from] ABC News does say Trump has business investments in Russia, but it does not say that Trump is being paid millions by the Russian government… while the report pointed to Trump’s dealings with Russian businessmen, it does not claim that government officials are funneling him money. Instead, it raises concerns that Trump will be swayed as president by his financial interests in Russia to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy — namely, lifting sanctions to ease the flow of money… no evidence of a direct monetary link between Trump and the Kremlin has been presented. The question raised by the ABC report was the possibility that Trump might use the office of president to benefit his own finances, while the blog posts asserted that Trump’s relationship with Russia had less to do with business than with cozying up to the Kremlin — a claim that was not made by the original source of the story”.
In another article published on 18 December 2016 has the title, “BREAKING: National Security Agencies On HIGH ALERT After Trump Caught Telling DANGEROUS Lie,” details how, “a video from 2013 has surfaced in which Trump is asked by a journalist if he has a “relationship” with Putin, and Trump proudly exclaims, “I do have a relationship.” He then goes on to creepily say that Putin is probably interested in the conversation they’re having, and will probably be watching the interview. Trump has said countless times that he has no relationship with Putin, and has even said that he’s never talked to him…in any fashion…ever.
When the CIA released findings that Russia had, in fact, interfered in the 2016 election, Trump was very quick to discredit the Central Intelligence Agency rather than question the integrity of the ruthless leader,” before linking to the video in a tweet put out by “Shawn King” (though they mean Shaun King, a civil rights activist).
Snopes, in their analysis, write that the claim made by the Report is “False”, stating:
“King’s words were elided [omitted] from the Bipartisan Report item, which shared the referenced video alone. But the content published by King alongside the video clearly stated that he had created the latter to illustrate what he believed was pertinent information that should be noted prior to the 19 December 2016 electoral college vote… Another notable aspect of the claim was its inherent suggestion that King’s post had uncovered new information about Trump. But the 2013 interview King referenced had already been covered as early as July 2016 by news outlets such as MSNBC, NBC News, and Medialite… The contrast between clickbait claiming Trump’s “dangerous lie” had triggered national security “high alert” status in mid-December 2016 was quickly disproved by its source material. Trump may have downplayed the nature of his acquaintanceship with Russian president Vladimir Putin during his campaign, but that was not the nature of the false claim made by Bipartisan Report”
So really, due to putting out a source that only tentatively made any claim about Trump’s Russia connections and that this information was new (the latter part being more King’s fault than the Report’s in my opinion), the Report misled many people and essentially created an attractive story that was not based on any real evidence. Quite simply, there was no way this story should even have been published as it does not live up to any journalistic ethical code nor the Report’s mission statement.
As well, there is some more interesting information, the author credit is suspicious. The author is listed as “Pearson McKinney” in the archived copy, yet, upon clicking on the credit, one is transferred to a page for “Tasha Williams”, (the tab lists her name as “Tasha Davis” and this is confirmed by her own Facebook profile, which lists her as a political writer for the Report and Occupy Democrats) who is still an author on the site and the Managing Editor. Upon searching for Pearson McKinney, all I could find was a Muck Rack profile which shows all of the articles written by McKinney being for the Bipartisan Report.
Upon examining one of the articles more closely, the article titled, “Did Muhammad Ali’s Funeral Really Just Block Donald Trump From Attending Beloved Boxer’s Funeral?” published on 09 June 2016, I have found that this same exact article (down to the initial opening paragraph, title, and publication date) on the Report with the author being Tasha Williams. There are multiple other articles on the Muck Rack profile for McKinney that are now credited on the Report as being authored by Williams. It is my belief that Pearson McKinney does not exist and is a pseudonym for Tasha Williams which she created to either (A) make the website seem as though they had more authors, (B) gather more revenue for herself, or (C) increase revenue to the site itself. Regardless of how one considers Williams/Davis’ motivations, it is undeniable that this tactic of masking one’s identity with a false name without even notifying that reader that the name is a pseudonym is not transparent and is unfair to the reader. As well, this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of pseudonymous names, however, I will get into this more later.
A Bipartisan Report article published either on 11 or 12 January of 2017 concerns Trump’s first formal press conference. The aim of this conference was to, “avoid any conflict of interest between his duties as president and his role as the owner of a multi-billion-dollar business by turning the management of his companies over to his sons, Eric and Donald,”; the conference also was notable for having a giant stack of manila files with papers in them with Trump noting these documents was proof of that transition. Reporters were not allowed to view the documents and many noted how these documents appeared to be unlabeled and untouched, with some noting that papers inside almost seemed blank. Describing how the Report fits into this, “The left-leaning BipartisanReport.com took the allegation one step further and declared the documents “fake”, [quoting directly] A dramatic stunt, meant to showcase how much work it is for Trump to transfer his businesses to his sons, turned out to be fake. The documents inside the folders were blank, and simply for show”.
Snopes notes however, “all the chatter about “empty files” and “blank” or “fake” documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can’t corroborate what was or was not in them. It’s certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it”.
Because the Bipartisan Report often strives to have a dual confirmation system for stories before publication, I am curious where they found the second confirmation that these files were outright fake if no journalist or reporter was able to touch the documents. As well, regardless as to how one feels about the nature of the veracity of the documents featured, to be as bold as the Bipartisan Report and make the claim that the documents were 100% fake is wrong and poor on their part as they have no way of confirming such allegations.
In a 03 June 2018 article, written by David Wells, holds the headline “Ivanka Trump Caught Shamefully Selling Clothing Under ‘Alias’ Brand Due To Massive Failure”. As Wells writes, “… his daughter Ivanka had her clothing line pulled from a lot of upscale stores because they didn’t want to sell anything with the Trump name on it. So what was poor Ivanka to do with all those clothes she couldn’t sell? Well it appears that she took the name Trump off of them, and changed the designer name to Adrienne Vittadini and started selling them at discount stores,” before relying predominantly again upon a Daily Mail article that was over a year old and relied upon a just as old article from Business of Fashion.
However, the Business of Fashion article provides far more information, writing, “G-III, the company that owns the right to manufacture and distribute Ivanka Trump apparel through a license agreement — and also owns brands including DKNY outright — acknowledges that it sold the relabeled merchandise to Stein Mart without the knowledge of the Ivanka Trump brand. It is not known whether this inventory was also sold to other retailers… Swiping labels — or simply ripping the label out completely — before a garment is sold to a discount retailer has long been commonplace. One reason is brand protection: if a brand is hot, it’s not desirable to be associated with a discounter. However, this practice occurs less often now that many major full-price retailers — such as Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue — operate their own off-price outlets, marketing the same brands they sell at full-line stores… It could be argued that G-III was simply looking to protect the Ivanka Trump brand from being associated with a discount retailer…”.
To quote Snopes directly in their final assertion on this piece:
“Retail blogs surmised that political tensions may have influenced the volume of merchandise landing in stores like Steinmart, but that speculation was formed without any information about whether there was any increase in unsold goods from Trump’s line when the story emerged in early 2017. It was equally likely excess products from that line and many others wound up in the hands of bargain hunters in stores like Steinmart in seasons past. Vogue UK confirmed that some Ivanka Trump pieces were relabeled under the Adrienne Vittadini brand before they were distributed in Steinmart stores (those respective brands have different distributors). However, it is well established that excess designer inventory is regularly sold off to off-price retailers, and for a variety of reasons”
So, Bipartisan Report blamed Ivanka solely for this entire debacle and alleged her of deliberately deceiving people when this practice is commonplace in the world of fashion and was, seemingly, in light of all available evidence, done by the company manufacturing the apparel, not Ivanka herself. As well, I find it interesting that the Report relied upon a year plus old series of articles and predominantly relied upon a source that is known to get factual information wrong (and they had experienced that back in August of 2016). Anyone who examines the information considered in these articles could be able to immediately tell that the Report was deliberately misleading readers.
In a 26 March 2017 article by Tasha Williams/Davis (writing under Pearson McKinney), the author writes, “…all eight Supreme Court justices have turned their backs on Trump, rejecting his nominee to fill Antonin Scalia’s empty seat…All eight of the current justices agree that President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court bench [citing a 2008 ruling by Gorsuch]… Chief Justice John Roberts penned a letter from the Supreme Court that addressed the issues with Gorsuch’s “approach” being “the law of the land” while writing under the headline, “JUST IN: All 8 Supreme Court Justices Stand in Solidarity Against Trump SCOTUS Pick”.
“All of this reporting was a gross partisan exaggeration. The eight sitting SCOTUS justices didn’t “turn their backs on Trump,” they didn’t “reject his nominee,” they didn’t “agree that President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch,” nor did they write a “letter” to that effect. The so-called “letter” refers not to a personal missive but to the Supreme Court’s opinion in their unanimous 22 March 2017 ruling in Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District, which dealt with the level of educational services public schools must provide to children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)… So yes, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with previous appellate decisions which Neil Gorsuch had a hand in shaping. But all courts of appeal, including the Supreme Court, essentially deal with disagreements over previous proceedings and rulings, and Gorsuch was not the only judge — nor was his court the only court — involved in those earlier decisions. To claim, as the Bipartisan Report did, that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District constituted a “rejection” of Gorsuch and was the equivalent of all “eight of the current Supreme Court justices” penning a “letter” holding that “President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch” is a gross misrepresentation of how the U.S. court system actually functions”
FactCheck.org, the fact-checking organization created by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed with Snopes on this story too and rated it as false. So, really, due to either an extremely unobservant reporter or in a deliberate attempt to change what really occurred and what was said, the Report got information completely wrong once again and in a massive degree.
In another article, written 05 March of 2017 by an Eliza Mayhew (however, this appears to be a pseudonym as, when one clicks on the name in the archived article, the author “Kendal Rooney” appears), makes the claim that, “Yet another Russian who was directly identified in the Donald Trump/Russia dossier [Steele Dossier] have [sic] died under suspicious circumstances. Alex Oronov, the first of the list to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Trump Hollywood, died two days ago… Oronov was a Russian/Ukrainian/American who allegedly arranged the meeting between the Trump and Putin administrations where Putin was ensured no action would be taken against Russia over Crimea,” operating under the headline, “JUST IN: Another Russian With Ties To Trump Is Dead – That’s 8 So Far (DETAILS)”.
Now, this claim is listed as “Unproven” by Snopes, however, in my own opinion, there is little information for the Report to be making such a bold claim regarding introductions and connections. They write, “…we found no credible evidence that Ukrainian-American businessman Alex Oronov was a “conspirator” with President Trump. Oronov was not mentioned in [the Steele] dossier containing unverified reports on Trump’s alleged Russian ties published by BuzzFeed in January 2017… Bryan [Oronov’s son-in-law] (who is Michael’s brother), told us that he had long been in poor health and was gravely ill when he passed away… Oronov was drawn into the conspiratorial fray because of misreported family connections, Bryan Cohen told us. A number of web sites took a Facebook post written by an embattled Ukrainian politician at face value and reported his claim that Oronov had introduced him to Michael Cohen as fact”.
Snopes further notes,
“The Times reported the meeting [between key Trump figures and Russians] took place in late January 2017, but “by the end of January my father-in-law was not in a position to be speaking or meeting” Cohen told us, as Oronov was incapacitated by the illness that would soon take his life. Cohen went on to say that claims his father-in-law’s death was “mysterious” or “suspicious” were ridiculous. Oronov passed away at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City on 2 March 2017 after having battled an illness for months… As of 9 March 2017, no credible news reports have placed Oronov in the midst of the so-called Kremlin “peace plan” meeting, and according to his son-in-law and others he would have been physically unable to have been involved. He also did not die under suspicious circumstances”
So, without any conclusively solid information to link Oronov to the President or his campaign, the Report ran a story that did not hold the necessary and sufficient amount of evidence in accordance with their own mission statement nor in accordance with proper investigative journalist practice.
As well, the article tries to further link Oronov and Trump together by making the claim that Oronov stayed at “Trump Hollywood”; Snopes addresses this, writing, “…some Internet sleuths have tried to claim that Oronov’s residence in a building bearing the Trump brand name is proof of a conspiracy, these claims seem to be little more than feeble attempts at guilt-by-association. (As the New Times reported back in 2011, the Trump Hollywood condo tower in which Oronov lived was a building from which “Donald Trump had distanced himself … saying that he had licensed only his name and was not responsible for what happened there.”)”.
It is also important to note something about the Steele Dossier; it is not something that would normally (or at least, should not) be included in the President’s Daily Brief or be submitted to Congress as legitimate intel. To quote the Washington Post’s description of the dossier, “[The dossier] was intended as raw, unverified intelligence… The dossier itself was not intended to be published and consists largely of rumors and gossip – the starting point for investigative reporters and law enforcement officials, not the end point” while also noting that some of what the Mueller investigation uncovered proved and lent credence to the dossier’s writings, while simultaneously either ignoring or outright rebuffing what the dossier said on other issues. Regardless as to how one considers the dossier, for a news agency, especially one that desires to truly inform their readers and take on the mantle of investigative reporting, to utilize the Steele Dossier in its current state as gospel is quite inappropriate and is rather wrong to do so.
In another 30 January 2017 article, again written by Tasha Davis/Williams writing under Pearson McKinney, the author makes the claim that, “Pope Francis condemned President Trump while addressing a crowd of German Catholics and Lutherans,” before excerpting the text. Again, however, Snopes finds most of what is written false, writing, “Although the quoted statements attributed to Pope Francis are genuine, those comments were not made by the pontiff in response to President Trump’s January 2017 executive order restricting travel to the U.S. Pope Francis made these remarks in October 2016, before Donald Trump was elected President or sworn into office, and the pontiff was addressing general rhetoric aimed at immigrants and refugees and not a specific piece of U.S. legislation”. So, by taking the Pope’s quotations out of context and utilizing them against a current politic topic, the Report just created news when there was none to be created. This goes against the Report’s mission statement of, “putting statements we quote into context, and summarizing the arguments of people we quote in ways that are recognizably fair and accurate”.
In early September of 2018, Bipartisan Report ran a story titled, “VP Mike Pence Busted Stealing Campaign Funds To Pay His Mortgage Like A Thief,” in which they documented how, “… Pence was once blasted for using more than $12,000 in campaign donations to pay his mortgage, credit card bills, fees for golf tournaments, and even his wife’s car payments. The incidents occurred in 1990, before the practice was deemed illegal, but were still considered highly unethical at the time. In short, Pence is reason [sic] laws had to be written around the practice of spending campaign donations on personal expenditures”.
However, this is a rather misleading headline as FactCheck.org noted four days after the article was published, writing:
“Pence wasn’t “busted,” because he was never found to have violated campaign laws. Also, the incident unfolded nearly three decades ago, not while he was vice president… While it’s true that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in 1990 about Pence and three other Republican candidates using campaign contributions for personal use, the commission could not agree on whether those candidates violated existing campaign finance laws. The six FEC commissioners… split along party lines when they voted on whether to adopt the recommendation of the commission’s general counsel. The general counsel had recommended finding that the candidates had not violated the law because it allowed for “wide discretion” in how campaigns chose to spend money. The general counsel’s office cited earlier FEC opinions that allowed for campaigns to pay for candidates’ living expenses… While the commissioners deadlocked on the outcome of that particular case, they did unanimously agree to consider amending the rules for candidates’ personal use of campaign funds [which eventually became adopted in 1995]”
So, the headline, which was basically made to attract people into clicking on the article and visiting the site, contained a falsehood in it by claiming that Pence was busted (implying arrest) when he never had been as well as claiming this occurred while he was Vice President. While the latter claim could be chalked up to a lazy headline, the former claim cannot and is a distortion of what truly occurred. As well, the real article still remains up on the Bipartisan Report’s website and has not been changed nor updated since 07 September of 2017 when FactCheck reported the article as having issues.
In another article published on 24 June 2018, David Wells titles his article “States Passes Historic Bill To Keep Trump Off The 2020 Ballot – Trump Prepares To Sue,” and writes, “Rhode Island’s state senate just passed a bill that would require presidential candidates to release five years of their tax returns if they want to be on the state’s ballot… She [Sen. Gayle Goldin] also said that every presidential candidate since Nixon had released their tax returns voluntarily until Donald Trump came along… Her bill passed the state senate 34-3 and now goes to the Rhode Island State House”.
This article was later apparently posted heavily on Facebook and other social media, which resulted in FactCheck finding it. They also rate this article false and allege it does not detail the entire story. To quote them:
“…the bill in question was passed only by the Rhode Island Senate — and wasn’t considered by the state’s House of Representatives before the legislative session ended June 23. The Senate bill would have required all presidential candidates to file their previous five years’ worth of federal income tax returns with the state Board of Elections before primary and general contests. The returns also would have been publicly disclosed. Noncompliant candidates would not have appeared on the state’s official ballot… The Bipartisan Report story does explain that only the Rhode Island Senate, and not the House, had passed the bill. But readers who didn’t get beyond the headline wouldn’t know that. And the story suggests that the legislation could still pass both chambers. But despite the bill’s support in the state Senate — it received a 34-3 vote on June 19 — Larry Berman, director of communications for Rhode Island’s speaker of the House of Representatives, told CNN last week that the House did not have plans “to consider this bill in the final days of this year’s legislative session”
FactCheck also noted how there were some claims of this action being unconstitutional, noting how CA Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill under such grounds and the ACLU holding similar sentiments. What one finds in this fact check, however, is how, by utilizing a poorly worded headline (most probably to attract more viewers), gave out the wrong information. What is most interesting about this article though is that the article is still available on the Bipartisan Report’s website, though the author has been changed from David Wells to broadly “Bipartisan Report”, the date of 24 June has been changed to 23 June, and the title is different, originally being “States Passes Historic Bill To Keep Trump Off The 2020 Ballot – Trump Prepares To Sue” and being changed to “Rhode Island Passes Historic Bill That Will Keep Trump Off The Ballot (DETAILS)”. Despite the changes, the article’s content has not changed and, even with the changes to the article’s headline, it still leads the viewer to receive inaccurate information (as most people will not continue reading a story past the headline).
In February of 2017, Kendal Rooney published a story titled, “Donald Trump Impeachment Process Begins – FEC Paperwork Filed – Tantrum Imminent,” citing that a man named Boyd Roberts, a Democrat, was running against Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, had “officially registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to run gainst [sic] Rohrabacher… Roberts has submitted the required paperwork to the FEC to establish an “Impeach Trump” leadership political action committee (PAC). The PAC is meant to raise money, which will be donated to help candidates and lawmakers. Based on the paperwork, however, his own campaign is the only beneficiary of it at this time”.
However, the Report severely misunderstands what goes into the impeachment process. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute defines the impeachment process as such, “The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment… The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present”. Snopes too rated this article false, stating that the FEC has no role in the impeachment process and, “Impeachment proceedings, which are formal charges of misconduct brought against elected officials, are extremely rare occurrences… Formal impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump commenced for real on 24 September 2019 when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry. According to a report in the New York Times, Pelosi accused Trump of “betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain”. Basically, the Report insinuated in their headline that impeachment proceedings had been filed against Trump in January of 2017 even though it was simply a political candidate who created a political action committee with the name of “Impeach Trump” which is hardly a legitimate impeachment proceeding nor anything resembling impeachment.
Also, it is important to note that there is no correction listed anywhere in the article, no updated text, nor is there anything resembling a change in wording or text from when the article was originally published, even though the article itself misleads and was effectively proven false by one of the largest, and probably most well-known, fact-checkers in the United States. This is in direct contradiction with one of the goals mentioned in the Report’s mission statement, which holds, “We promptly respond to correct errors in material published”. There has been no correction in the material whatsoever.
In another example of an article remaining unchanged despite being proven false in one or more areas is an article written by Tasha Williams and published on 22 May 2016 with the title, “JUST IN: Donald Trump Took $150,000 In Federal Relief Aid Meant For Victims Of 9/11 Attack,” and details (in a rare, non-Twitter sourced article) how, “Donald Trump’s building at 40 Wall Street is located a mile from ground zero, yet Donald Trump joined in with fellow bigwigs to take that money from the mouths of business owners, some of whom had to close shop completely after the attack. Trump granted the money after he was able to prove that the business located at 40 Wall Street only had $26 in its bank account… The real clincher, is the fact that the business located at 40 Wall Street brings in an annual revenue of $8 million, which clearly disqualifies if from being considered a small business. Also, even if there were structural damages to the building, Donald Trump could have easily afforded to fix it himself. Trump, however, decided to take advantage of the federal government’s generosity”.
Snopes rates this “Mostly False”, detailing the entire controversy in their article while more succinctly putting it, “The grant money wasn’t specifically earmarked for small businesses, nor was it improperly accessed by Trump. Trump’s businesses did not lie or mislead federal agencies to in order to qualify under the terms of the programs, which didn’t require businesses to have sustained physical damage to be entitled to the funds. Trump’s business also wasn’t the only large firm to qualify under criteria used by the agency tasked with distributing the grant money”. So, what truly occurred was the exact opposite of what the article claimed. Despite being disproven by Snopes and with the real story coming out about the dealings, the Report still has the article up, unchanged and not corrected or edited in any way.
Another article produced by the Bipartisan Report was again found to be false by FactCheck. The article, published on 30 April 2018, was written again by Tasha Davis and holds the title, “W.H. Staffers Defect, Releasing Private Tapes Recording That Has Trump Dead Silent,” which details three former employees revealing that audio tapes of Trump conversations held in Trump Tower exist (this is obviously different from the headline). The story got a lot of attention on Facebook which promoted FactCheck to respond. They write, “Facebook users flagged it as potentially false. It is… The story under the headline is mostly a re-hashed Wall Street Journal report from a year ago that quoted three unnamed former Trump employees who said that as a businessman he had recorded calls in Trump Tower… there’s no evidence of White House tapes and it’s not true that former staffers have released a tape. A search of the Nexis news database showed no results for reports of recently released tape recordings of Trump”.
Even the article itself disproves the headline above the Report article. One could chalk this up to laziness of the author, however, I argue that something more is afoot. This article is the epitome of clickbait, enticing a reader into a story about newly discovered and played Trump tapes, only to then be had when it is stated that the staffers revealed only that they knew of tapes in Trump Tower, not that they had them nor released them. The added “Has Trump Dead Silent” adds to the clickbait-y nature as it includes a celebrity or well-known person, increasing the amount of people who will click on the article. All around, it is dishonest.
As some of you may have noticed, many of the articles discussed here feature headlines with big bolded letters peppered throughout, mentioned an important figure, or made a salacious claim (as well as basic spelling errors that any type of editing would fix). These are all key tactics of making clickbait. A website called the Search Engine Journal, which is specifically designed for search engine marketers to trade ideas and discuss tactics, details in an article some of the best clickbait headlines and how to write headlines to “drive traffic and clicks”. In one article, the author details how piggybacking is a successful method, explaining that this tactic involves, “referencing a well-known figure or company in relation to your brand/post” as well as how utilizing live content can help attract readers. The author also points out how such titles as, “This is what…” or “You won’t believe…” can be very successful in attracting readers and followers.
Another article from the same website notes how articles with headlines that pull a quote from the source or leverage a compelling statistic, places a word in all caps, or has a number can help in driving traffic to the site. One can see that the Report utilizes these tactics to a great extent, with nearly every article exhibiting some form of clickbait. Taking the top stories from 05 June 2020, this is easily seen;
Washington DC Mayor Publicly Shames Trump Over Failed Presidency (mentions a well-known figure)
Trump Wakes Up and Tweets 68 Times Like A Maniac On Drugs (mentions both a well-known figure and includes a number)
New Friday Poll Results Show U.S. Senate Turning Bright Blue (mentions a statistic)
There are many, many other examples, some of which have already been mentioned in the analysis of how the Bipartisan Report reports the news. However, here are many more examples of clickbait-y type headlines through the site, many of them combining the tactics of statistics, numbers, well-known figures, and all caps on certain words;
As affirmed before, these are not the only stories which have a sizeable amount of clickbait embedded within the headlines. There are hundreds of others, with nearly every article containing some form of clickbait. Below are a few screenshots from the Report’s archives;
As well, I am not the only person to be calling the site largely engaging in clickbait. On one of Pace University’s Library’s Research Guides, titled “REAL NEWS vs. FAKE NEWS: Fake News,” they provide tips on what to avoid when examining news agencies. They write, “websites sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions (examples: BipartisanReport.com, TheFreeThoughtProject.com)”. As well, Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of communication and media studies at Merrimack College, has compiled a listing of websites that consistently report or create news stories that are either false, satirical, misleading, or clickbait-y, having initially created this for her own students. She lists the Bipartisan Report in her listing, noting them as being predominantly clickbait while also having an extreme bias.
Not only does the site have a poor track record in terms of factual accuracy and updating articles to properly reflect accurate content, but they also rely upon incredible or dubious sources (or commentators to back up their stories and ideas) who have become known for either extreme bias or for conspiratorial reporting. Below is a short listing of those sources and one of the stories they feature in;
Louise Mensch – (Mensch is a former MP (Member of Parliament) for the UK’s House of Commons and has written a series of articles that have been controversial and void of any factual evidence backing up her claims. For example, she has in the past alleged that the FBI, in October of 2016, was granted a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump Tower, a claim which was found to be baseless and goes against what the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) stated about the allegations. She also has alleged that Andrew Breitbart was killed by Russian intelligence on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin, the 2017 Istanbul mass shooting was a “false flag operation by Russia. And that Putin is Isis”, and that Israeli intelligence also hacked the United States in the 2016 Presidential Election. It almost goes without saying, but there is little evidence to back up the claims she has made, even though some of them (like Israeli intelligence being involved in the presidential election) seem logical. She seems to be in the field of making baseless claims without having any evidence rather than legitimately reporting the news and actually informing people)
Claude Taylor – (Taylor is a rather famous social media personality and is known to be closely associated with Mensch. In an August 2017 article by The Guardian, “Claude Taylor tweeted fake details of criminal inquiries into Trump that were invented by a source whose claim to work for the New York attorney general was not checked… The hoaxer, who fed the information to Taylor by email, said she acted out of frustration over the “dissemination of fake news” by Taylor and Mensch… “Taylor asked no questions to verify my identity, did no vetting whatsoever, sought no confirmation from a second source – but instead asked leading questions to support his various theories, asking me to verify them,” the source said in an email”. If this is the kind of fact-checking and vetting process that one can expect from a source, then perhaps they are not the most diligent nor are willing to report items factually. Mother Jones magazine has also reported that in 2017, “[Taylor] claimed that Trump was secretly indicted”)
Eric Garland – (Garland is another often cited source and figure in Bipartisan Report articles in addition to being prominent on Twitter for his long rants. In a Business Insider article which interviewed Garland, the authors note, “He’s not afraid to offer brazen predictions or cast aspersions — occasionally without much more than speculation. Garland posited that House Intelligence chair Devin Nunes would go to prison over his handling of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the election, and Trump would leave office “within weeks” because of indictments over yet unproven ties to Russia. To Garland, former NSA official Edward Snowden proved unequivocally he was a Russian spy when he leaked internal documents… And according to news reports he didn’t specify and Business Insider could not locate, Russian lawmakers have so clearly manipulated Trump, American intelligence officials recorded Russians calling the president “pussyboy.” But while his followers are quick to share Garland’s theories, many journalists find the speculation irresponsible and hilariously absurd”. Garland has also alleged that, “absolutely everything is the product of a long, slow Russian master plan to bring America to its knees by encouraging the population not to trust the noble, hardworking CIA” and that Glenn Greenwald and Chelsea Manning are both Russian agents. Garland does not provide evidence for any of these claims)
As one can see, these authors are rather incredible and seemingly do not hold themselves to the same standards of evidence that investigative journalists or counterintelligence investigators hold themselves to. For the Bipartisan Report to utilize these sources who are quite incredible and have shown themselves to give into their own biases or conspiracies and to push news stories without any verifiable facts behind them is very wrong on the Report’s part. It is unfair to the reader to have such an organization utilize sources who may potentially feed them wrong information but it also goes against the Report’s mission statement of having sources give them “factual information”. If these are who the Report finds to be credible witnesses or reporters, then they are severely mistaken as having these types of sources and relying on them for commentary within articles drastically increases the potentiality for which stories can be corrupted with false information. To quote an article from The Atlantic which covers these (and other) prolific Tweeters, “People like [Mensch, Taylor, and Garland] feed their followers a steady diet of highly provocative speculation, rumor, and innuendo that makes it sound as if Trump’s presidency – and, really, the entire Republican Party – is perpetually on the verge of a spectacular meltdown”. This seems to sum up the sources that the Bipartisan Report utilizes quite well as some of their content seems to speculative and incendiary, which calls their total credibility into doubt.
The Partisan Behind the Bipartisan Report
The creator and publisher of the Bipartisan Report is a relatively easy person to find, predominantly because he is listed prominently on their about page and throughout. The creator is named Justin Brotman. This name is probably not familiar to the majority of you (as it was unfamiliar to me), however, there is an abundance of information about the person. Brotman is, first, the son of Jeff Brotman, an American attorney and one of the founders of the Costso Wholesale Corporation.
Brotman the younger got his start in 2009 not through the media, but instead by opening up a juice bar called Healeo in “The Pearl apartment building on the corner of 15th and Madison,” which specialized in “[offering] organic ingredients in delicious drinks, foods, vitamins, and supplements”. Prior to opening Healeo, he had worked as a manager at Simple Seattle, a chocolate retailer, and had worked at, “Great Earth Vitamin Company… owned by Bernie Bubman, the guy who got his dad [Jeff Brotman] hooked on supplements decades ago”.
One commenter on the story pointed out however that Justin Brotman opened up his establishment in the same building that his father owns (the Pearl apartment buildings is named for Pearl Brotman, Jeff Brotman’s mother and Justin’s grandmother), alleging that he was utilizing his father’s money to start his business; in an interview with Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, Brotman stated he, “doesn’t have a trust fund and, yes, he will pay market rate for the Healeo location even though 1500 Madison LLC, a company his father manages, owns the building”. Brotman also said, “he’s been raising money and learning the ropes of the small business world by helping run his uncle’s shops in downtown Seattle. The Costco family, it turns out, is also behind tourist and t-shirt shop fixture, Simply Seattle”.
So, at this point, Brotman has only worked in his family’s or his family’s friend’s businesses, none of which are media companies. I personally could care less if he has a trust fund or received payments from his father to help his business (I think it is what any caring father or parent would do), but what I am doubting are his credentials to run a liberal news organization. It seems like the only credentials he has for running such a media organization is that he has a liberal bend. He does not, based on all available evidence, have an educational or professional background in journalism, political science, or communications, but rather in business (his Bachelors too is in Sociology, gained from the University of the Pacific). As we have seen with The Free Thought Project (which has something of a libertarian bend), this can result in the true goals of journalistic integrity becoming secondary to profit.
Considering how Healeo turned out though, he seems to be something of an adept businessman. As of March 2010, after being open for somewhere close to a year, “Brotman said Healeo is breaking even, and in recent months has started to pay back debt from startup costs. Like a lot of entrepreneurs, he used savings and money from family, including his dad”. It is not uncommon for businesses to trouble in their early years, again, nor is it bad that he took money from his parents to help. As well, it seems that, as of April 2015, his business was doing well enough that he had created the Healeo Juice Company, LLC. It also appears that the creation of this company was around the same time that Brotman became involved in the 2015 protests which resulted from Freddie Gray’s death, in which an African-American man died after an encounter with law enforcement officers in Baltimore, Maryland.
This appears to be the first time that Justin Brotman and the Bipartisan Report were linked together. A BBC News article describes how Brotman, under the account @Bipartisanism (home of the Bipartisan Report), led a, “[grassroots] campaign to change the public perception of what happened in Baltimore last week”. What is most striking to me about this is one comment noted in the BBC’s report, which quotes Brotman saying, “will continue pushing for what he believes is a less biased, more accurate story from the streets of Baltimore – and wherever else protests may pop up in the US. While these stories may lack sensationalist headlines, Brotman says the narrative… is gaining traction”.
It is interesting to me how he argues for a less biased and more accurate story that is not seemingly sensationalized, yet has transitioned into sensationalizing content massively. As well, while the article notes that the Bipartisan Report was around in May of 2015, the earliest story I can find from the Report’s archives is from July of 2015 and it does not concern Baltimore or Freddie Gray, but Rick Perry. As well, it’s hard to call this an article as it is literally a single sentence with only a link to a CBS News article which performs the actual reporting. This can hardly be called a journalistic article.
While the site has been active since 2015, they truly began gaining media attention due to their tactics and operations in 2016. In an interview with The Guardian, Brotman detailed how, “about two-thirds of the authors use pseudonyms… [saying] “Most of our authors start out saying, ‘I’ll use my real name, I don’t care’,” he says. “One week in, after they start getting death threats, they change their minds”.
As proven earlier with the McKinney-Davis/Williams authorship problem, this is problematic as it can make deciphering the author’s previous track record or their background/affiliations in terms of accurately reporting the news or their veracity. This is actually important because who is writing the news that people are consuming is an important part of journalism. If Judith Miller or Jante Cooke or Jayson Blair began using a pseudonym while writing new stories for a newspaper, then the newspaper itself would be looked upon harshly because they have hired journalists who are known to be discredited. Utilizing pseudonyms or fake names to conceal one’s identity prevents the reader from understanding more about the author and their ability to truthfully report the facts of a given case and, at the least, automatically is suspicious of the entire site’s true intentions. While Brotman says that it is because of death threats received, which is a valid point, this does not excuse the fact that the Report allows their journalists to create fake names. While a 2018 reportfound that the death and imprisonment threat against journalists was the highest in ten years, those journalists have not utilized fake names to conceal their identity when writing, most likely finding it their duty to report the facts of a given scenario truthfully under their own names despite the threats and danger of such a task.
In 2016, Brotman shuttered his juice café ahead of another company’s acquisition of The Pearl apartment building, with the article noting, “the start-up nature extended to the business’s profits — a 2014 lawsuit brought by a bookkeeper who claimed she was owed more than $20,000 noted that from 2009 to at least mid-2014, Healeo “operated on negative margins” and often required “cash infusions” from a Brotman Family Trust”.
I find this rather interesting as, previously, Brotman had said he did “not have a trust fund” and did not benefit from any type of family trust, yet here, a lawsuit alleges that he was aided by such a trust. It seems that, even when Brotman spoke about his company to journalists, he was deceitful and did not reveal this information.
Months later, a November 2016 article written by The Seattle Times documents the Bipartisan Report and Brotman’s journalistic endeavors. The article is very insightful and provides a wealth of information, including quotes from Brotman who is unashamed about being called clickbait, yet detests being called fake news. To quote the article at large;
Bipartisan Report runs two or three dozen stories a day, most with truth-stretching headlines crafted to feed red meat to a liberal audience. Examples just from the past few days:
All of these stories are tethered to something true, but exaggerate it or misconstrue it to the point of unrecognizability. Yes, there are questions about the Trump Foundation’s future, but no, 41 AGs did not move to shut it down. Yes, there is a legislator in the state of Georgia who did propose a bill to bar veils in public, but he was the only one (and he pulled the bill).
As for Gloria Allred, she is a lawyer who represents some women who say they were groped by Donald Trump, but there was no breaking announcement about that month-old story this week.
“We fall into the click-baity category,” Brotman says.
Eleven writers craft the stories to gin up maximum liberal passion and outrage, as well as shares on Facebook and online clicks.
Brotman started the site in 2012 as a left-wing imitation of Fox News.
“Fox hit on a perfect formula,” Brotman said. “What Fox does is accurate to a point. It’s based on facts and reporting, but at the same time it’s giving people only the parts they want to hear. It leaves out any context or contradictory facts that people don’t want to hear.
So it’s not lying, but it’s leaving out critical information.”
The name he chose for his site — Bipartisan Report — is “a middle finger to Fox News” for their slogan about being “fair and balanced,” Brotman says.
What’s remarkable is that the site, which I had never heard of until it showed up this week on a widely shared list of false or click-baity news sources, has more than a million likes on Facebook. According to the web-ranking service Quantcast, its audience is about 10 million unique individuals a month. That puts it somewhere in the top 100 to 200 news websites in the U.S.
“We’re a legitimate news-media company,” says Justin Brotman, 34, son of the Costco co-founder Jeff Brotman. “We’re being attacked as ‘fake’ because traditional media is freaked out we can make more money than you, out of our basements”
This article contains a lot of key information, showing how Brotman views himself and the site, why he decided to create such a site, and how he views fake news.
First, I would like to note that I included the in-text links to the Bipartisan Report articles mentioned. Usually, in quoting a source, I do not include in-text links, however, here I have because all of those articles are now labeled as being “page not found” on the Bipartisan Report’s website. While I would normally chalk this up to coincidence, it is seemingly common that the Report, upon being focused on in a fact check or some other form of criticism of the site’s operations, articles are deleted. Because the article includes quotes from Brotman, it is understandable that Brotman would be looking out for the article and, finding it does not look upon his favorably, would try to tip the odds in his favor.
Second, Brotman’s embracement of being called clickbait is interesting. Many news agencies would shirk at being branded as such, yet Brotman is perfectly fine with it. True, there is nothing inherently, on the surface, wrong with clickbait, but the key with clickbait is to, “[Create] great, accurate headlines that entice people to click – and, when they click, don’t disappoint them – have content deliver on that promise”. The Bipartisan Report, as has been proven in the rest of my analysis, does not do this by having blatant falsities in their titles which leads people to click hoping to find such content, only to find that the real story is much, much different. The Report, in almost every article, has a falsity in the title and fails to provide their readers with such content, going as far as to occasionally engineer developments that are more click worthy. While clickbait (as defined by academics at the University of Florida and professional social media and content marketers) may not be wrong itself, the way in which the Bipartisan Report is utilizing it certainly is.
As well, his comments on Fox seemingly prove that he is not doing this because he cares about properly informing the left or other readers. Nowhere in this does it mention that Brotman desires to provide an outlet for leftist views nor provide a place for viewers who desire accurate and timely information on current events or domestic and foreign political developments.
While Brotman has tried to portray himself as constructing a news site for leftists and one that engages with the public while documenting these issues and developments better than more mainstream outlets, this is quite obviously not what his desire truly is.
Based upon the kind of articles that have been run with the amount of errors that exist, the usage of pseudonyms for purposes that do not seem to be for one’s personal security, the clickbait-y headlines, and the false public statements made by Brotman in regards to his past and finances, I think it is quite safe to say that the Bipartisan Report does not desire to truthfully detail political developments. Instead, they are out to publish quick headlines and sensationalized stories that will gain them views, money, and notoriety.
Comments