Team Hillary cracks the whip on comedians and their venue that made fun of her

[Torie]

Well, I already knew that Hillary had a thin skin, but it may be even thinner than I thought. Yes, I know, it comes from a right wing site, and thus must be false and all, blah, blah.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

Bacon's response on all of this is a bit more helpful to the conversation (his source, Slate, is biased too, but that's fine with me), but that's just my opinion. You see, that is how it works. Somebody puts up something, and somebody else researches it, and puts that up, and over time, readers can evaluate where the truth probably lies. Simply dismissing something out of the box because of the source I don't think is the best way to get at the truth actually.

Presumably in due course, the Clinton campaign will deny that anyone from their camp made the call. And yes, it would be incredibly stupid if someone from their camp had made the call.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

Bacon's response on all of this is a bit more helpful to the conversation (his source, Slate, is biased too, but that's fine with me), but that's just my opinion. You see, that is how it works. Somebody puts up something, and somebody else researches it, and puts that up, and over time, readers can evaluate where the truth probably lies. Simply dismissing something out of the box because of the source I don't think is the best way to get at the truth actually.

Presumably in due course, the Clinton campaign will deny that anyone from their camp made the call. And yes, it would be incredibly stupid if someone from their camp had made the call.

The Slate article actually says that the Clinton campaign denied that they made the call.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let me educate you on how journalism works.  You don't have a story until you verify it somewhat.  Like, "How do you know this person worked for the Clinton campaign?"  That is a basic question which the original story doesn't answer.  The Slate story has the answer and the guy has a very unconvincing answer.  He's not reliable with that kind of answer, especially because this is marketing his business.  And, once you get a silly accusation, you have to call the Clinton campaign for comment.  It wasn't done until an actual journalist at Slate contacted the Clinton campaign.

I hope you're not actually this stupid.  But, this act of playing dumb to smear political candidates, it's a bad look.  "On one hand, we have an unsubstantiated rumor that doesn't make sense."  Hmm...

Well, guess what Torie, John Kasich called me yesterday and said he was secretly a member of ISIS and he murdered a political opponent by poisoning him in the early 90s.  So, I guess we're going to have to take that somewhat seriously.  I mean, maybe it didn't happen, but it's something to keep in mind.  After all, Atlas Forum is a website, on the internet.

You are really wrought up about all of this aren't you? Look at it this way: now if the matter comes up out there on the Fruited Plain somewhere which Forumites run across, Forumites will know the ins and outs of the story, and that there is no evidence the alleged call came from Team Hillary, so the story is a big nothing. Isn't that just grand?

[Torie]

Bedstuy I know your style is sharp elbows, and when you smell blood you go in for the kill, but I never said I believed anything. The word "may" was in there. It's a story out there and I passed it on. You think it makes me look like a gullible idiot. You are entitled to your opinion. We are done.