The article also quotes academics who present ethics and campaign finance concerns. It's legitimate journalism. Just because these creators are on our political team doesn't mean they are beyond criticism.
Replies
She came at me over something I posted about measles and made a number of claims about COVID that had nothing to do with what I posted. She also didn’t provide any sources for anything. Then she said I had fallen for misinformation. I muted her and unfollowed her on all accounts.
aug 31, 2025, 8:06 am • 2 0 • view
I don't know Lorenz and have only read this article by her. But I was impressed by it. I won't discount your lived experience with her. I can't speak to that. All I have is what was published by Wired. If facts fall against that story, I'll change my mind. But I found it compelling.
aug 31, 2025, 8:11 am • 0 0 • view
I believe several people who published receipts that the contract that she cited wasn’t accurate. I’m not going to go through all of them but it was at least half a dozen people. She’s an experienced journalist but she likes to trash anyone on left who isn’t as far left as she is.
aug 31, 2025, 8:14 am • 3 0 • view
I don't know Lorenz and haven't read her past work. But I don't want to judge the content of this article by her past tangles with other writers, creators, or activists. That may be context in judging the whole of her work, but not specifics in one piece. Those allegations are either true, or not.
aug 31, 2025, 8:20 am • 0 0 • view
Research it yourself. I don't have time for this. It's not my work to defend. I found several people who work with this organization who posted proof that they had not hidden their involvement. I also so no actual evidence of coordination like I described earlier.
aug 31, 2025, 8:22 am • 5 0 • view
I've been following you for years. Your work I know and like. That article by Lorenz is the only one of hers I've read. Your experience with her matters to me because I like your work. But I don't want to discount the article purely on inside baseball grounds. In time, this will sort out. Thank you.
aug 31, 2025, 8:25 am • 0 0 • view
One thing she didn’t show that I see all the time on the right. The exact same phrasing used on multiple accounts published at the same time. That’s a weekly occurrence on Twitter with rightwing accounts. It’s word for word the exact same language.
aug 31, 2025, 8:04 am • 2 0 • view
This is all it takes to get an academic to quote in an article - You call or email an academic they agree to make a statement.
aug 31, 2025, 8:02 am • 2 0 • view
It’s not an accurate article. If several people offered proof, which I’ve seen, the refutes the article then I’m going with the proof over a journalist who has a shady track record. She came at me once over some nonsense about COVID
aug 31, 2025, 8:00 am • 1 0 • view
It also has a retraction on it.
aug 31, 2025, 7:59 am • 2 0 • view
I didn't see a retraction when I read it. I'll go look again.
aug 31, 2025, 8:01 am • 0 0 • view
They updated the article to provide a correction. The left has grifters too and it’s a bit much for her to take $8000 a month from another group - not disclose it - and then come at chorus for doing the same thing. When several of them posted proof that they were transparent about working with them.
aug 31, 2025, 8:10 am • 3 0 • view
Her taking 8k/mo undisclosed may go to Lorenz's narrative bias. Perhaps even her hypocrisy. But you're a journalist. You follow the specific claims and either refute, or not. I read the article on initial publication and didn't see the update. I'll look again and rethink.
aug 31, 2025, 8:16 am • 0 0 • view
Again the people involved with the group provided proof in the form of old posts that proved they had not hidden their involvement with the group. Do I go with an accusation or proof? I’m going with proof - dated posts.
aug 31, 2025, 8:19 am • 4 0 • view
"Do I go with an accusation or proof? I’m going with proof - dated posts." Fair enough. Your busy. I respect that. I won't drag this out to an unproductive thread or challenge you personally. I look forward to reading a counter by someone who details why the article is wrong on substance.
aug 31, 2025, 8:30 am • 0 0 • view
I found the entire endeavor odd because the right wing funds entire media companies and think tanks with billions of dollars and they do put out coordinated messaging - word for word exact copies across the internet all the time. A bunch of them were even paid by Russia. That's the real problem.
aug 31, 2025, 8:34 am • 5 0 • view
That's absolutely true. It's just not a standard by which I want to consume my media diet. That is, that Koch or Thiel fund bullshit content for others is no reason for me to accept someone else bullshitting in the content I consume. I want to avoid bullshit altogether. Right? Sometimes it's tough.
aug 31, 2025, 8:42 am • 1 0 • view
A Russian group made a fake media company and was paying rightwing influencers $400,000 a month for content. Some of them knew they were getting paid by Russia and some didn't. They all trashed Biden and Democrats. That's what we are up against.
aug 31, 2025, 8:46 am • 52 19 • view
Yes. I'm aware of that story. Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and others took money from Kremlin sources laundered through a private company in the US. They claim no wrongdoing. (Though did not return the money) But that outrage is not a funding model, it's a crime. We agree on a lot here.
aug 31, 2025, 8:53 am • 0 0 • view
