Lying About Hillary Is Still Our Favorite Spectator Sport

Sachelle Babbar/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In the Guardian today, former Bookslut editor-in-chief Jessa Crispin takes on Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton is still trying to sell herself as a feminist icon. Don’t buy it

It was clickbait, and I clicked. I was a little surprised to find that the entire piece contained only one paragraph related to Clinton, but I was even more surprised when that paragraph contained a grand total of two allegations, both of which were linked to other sources. Here’s the first:

Hillary Clinton is still trying to sell herself as a feminist icon — as a “gutsy woman,” as she puts it in an interview she did to support the new four-part documentary about her life and career, Hillary, soon to debut at Sundance….“How could we have known?” Clinton asks, when questioned in the same interview about her longstanding friendship and political relationship with alleged sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. Never mind the fact that Ronan Farrow has publicly accused Clinton’s publicist of trying to kill his first story about the accusations against Weinstein.

That’s the exact opposite of what Farrow said. In the link that Crispin herself provides, Farrow says that although he did get an email from Clinton’s publicist, “The allegation here is not that Hillary Clinton was seeking to squash the Weinstein story.” So let’s move on to allegation #2:

Or that Lena Dunham has said she discussed Weinstein with Clinton in private.

Again, it turns out that this is exactly the opposite of what Dunham said. She never claimed to have spoken with Clinton at all:

In March [2016], Ms. Dunham, a vocal Clinton supporter, said she warned the campaign. “I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Ms. Dunham said she told Kristina Schake, the campaign’s deputy communications director….Ms. Dunham says she has “an incredible allegiance to Hillary,” and does not believe the reports ever traveled to Mrs. Clinton.

This is Crispin’s own link. It’s not like I had to go digging for anything.

How can people write stuff like this? If you want to go after Hillary Clinton for being naive about Weinstein—or for misstating what she knew and when she knew it—that’s fine. Go ahead and make your case. But if you do this, why would you back it up with two false allegations and then provide the very links that demonstrate they’re false? Is this just life in Donald Trump’s America? A demonstration of poor reading skills? An assumption that you can get away with anything because no one ever clicks on the link?

Whatever it is, it’s bizarre behavior.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate