There's confusion in what's being argued here. 1. Establishment dems should/n't fund small creators (financing) 2. Establishment dems should/n't have to disclose who they fund and why (transparency) I think everyone in the audience is for 2., so we're arguing over 1.
Is that your reading of the article and the discourse following it?
yes
Could you point to the part of the article headlined "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers" that isn't about transparency?
that's a bait'n'switch, Tom. Your comment also read > and the discourse following it IMO information isn't important in a vacuum, the public's reaction to that information is the real object of study.
So you didn't read the article Pakman was responding to? In that case you are excused. The article was about the lack of transparency, Pakman responded saying "the republicans don't care about transparency, give me my money, also fake news." If anyone tried a bait and switch it was Pakman.
Do you swear by that characterization of his response? If I were to post direct quotes from his response that contradicted this characterization, what would that mean for the integrity of your position as a whole?
Yup. Let's see, throw in quotes from the article he's refuting at the same time.
...man, see I was gonna, but I just had that crystal clear awareness moment that we're getting into it in the replies of one of the best living roast comedians we are fencing in a minefield, the loser may not be the worse duelist, necessarily
I still think you haven't read it.
We can call that touché if you'd like. Have a nice day :)
The timbre hasn't been "I do/don't love knowing who's funding my media outlets," it's been "I do/don't particularly care that Dems are spending money in this way to further their cause, while their opponents are using the same tactic to much eviller ends."
Dark money groups are obv sus but not everything they fund is ibso facto bad. They fund environmental initiatives, too (just on balance, way less). Knowing that the Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $141 million in dark money to pro-environment initiatives in 2023 does not sway me anti-environment.
If we're talking propaganda, failing to distinguish between "dark money = bad" as an operational heuristic vs. as a moral stain in and of itself will separate audiences of critical thinkers vs. marks.
I thought packman was the co-founder of chorus? I thought this was his thing and if this is the video I am remembering where he talked about this he does mention the dark money aspect and says more than just the screen grab implies. Or is this entirely different?