As Twitchy reported earlier, a lot of journalists were reporting Wednesday that they’d received a sort of offer they couldn’t refuse (but did anyway).
Tablet Magazine recently had published a thoroughly researched exposé of the anti-Semitism present at the very origins of the Women’s March, and just about any reporter who even retweeted the link to the story received an email offering them a “fact-check” of Tablet’s reporting — on the condition that they deleted their tweets about the original piece.
Oh, and also that they promised to run anything they intended to publish by the PR outfit first to “secure their agreement.”
At least one journalist decided to go for it and see this “fact-check” for herself:
Like everyone else, I got the PR email. I agreed to go off-the-record because I was curious about the "fact-check." (I didn't agree to deleting my tweet or publishing.)
The doc didn't prove @tabletmag's reporting was wrong, so I'm sharing the piece again: https://t.co/La5VDOZpYg
— Andrea González-Ramírez (@andreagonram) December 12, 2018
I don't know what's up with comms shops this week. Besides this debacle, I've also had less-than-stellar interactions with some PR people. I'm just gonna say that trying to bully journalists never works.
— Andrea González-Ramírez (@andreagonram) December 12, 2018
The New York Times’ Byron Tau also thought the heavy-handed email made the original piece worth another retweet:
Recommended
Sharing this Tablet article out of sheer spite for this kind of PR manipulation.https://t.co/PHZzrDrVLp https://t.co/jWHp8PotJW
— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) December 12, 2018
Why would a fact check be off the record? Isn’t that the whole point? To correct the record?
— Emily Troutman (@emilytroutman) December 12, 2018
I got the same email. Is this some new strategy to discredit someone else’s reporting? Spam those that tweeted the story?
— jasoncherkis (@jasoncherkis) December 12, 2018
Here’s the New York Times’ Nick Confessore:
There are left-leaning outlets that will aggregate a ham sandwich that don’t seem interested in this Tablet story—even to criticize it.
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) December 12, 2018
retweeting this just to get an email
— Griswold Christmas Vacation (@HashtagGriswold) December 12, 2018
Why rely on left-leaning outlets? It should be covered by MSM.
— Her 2020 ??⚖️ (@FlipBlue2020) December 12, 2018
One and the same.
— Mike_A. (@MikeAdamsWI) December 12, 2018
Name them, shame them, expose them. https://t.co/8T9vB6h2lV
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) December 12, 2018
As Twitchy reported earlier Wednesday, “the email appears to have been sent by Inarú Meléndez, communications coordinator for Megaphone Strategies, a self-described ‘not-for-profit social justice media strategy firm.’ Megaphone Strategies was also co-founded by … Van Jones.”
Bang-up job there, Megaphone. You did get Tablet to update its piece. Drum roll, please …
So you may have heard a PR firm claiming Tablet was going to correct our 10,000-word Women's March expose. Well, here are all 4 changes. They do not substantively change the piece, but they do strengthen it! (e.g. We understated how many local marches had already broken away.) pic.twitter.com/jj1q7KiDlP
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) December 12, 2018
So now that the piece has been fact-checked and fixed, go read it (again):
Everyone seeing the p.r. emails about the Tablet piece, this is the piece they're talking about https://t.co/zLFcJ3vQXB
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 12, 2018
Related:
'Uh what'? Women's March's new strategy might be 'the weirdest attempt at damage control I've ever seen' [pics] https://t.co/lmCqHg8bKu
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 12, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member