This Twitter user with 12 followers has caught the attention of the New York Times’ Elaina Plott:
@SenCoryGardner I’m a constituent in your district and an unaffiliated party voter. I typically vote my conscience for candidate regardless of party affiliation. If you choose not to stand for a fair impeachment trial with witnesses, I will vote for your opponent. https://t.co/IBTLywdvjr
— FrontRangeJohnny (@FRangeJohnny) January 19, 2020
You see, this is a perfect example that she just wrote about for the NYT on “unaffiliated voters” in Colorado:
Cory Gardner currently facing a GOP base who doesn't think he's supported the president enough, and then a swath of unaffiliated voters — the plurality in Colorado — who feel like this—> https://t.co/l9wILUBXv7
— Elaina Plott (@elainaplott) January 19, 2020
So, did you catch the tiny error in this guy’s tweet that might make what he’s saying suspect, especially to a blue-check journo?
You’re singling out a twitter user with 12 followers. Did you verify this is actually a constituent?
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 19, 2020
It’s worse than her not verifying that he’s actually a Colorado resident:
not to mention, of course, that Senators don’t have “districts”
— Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) January 19, 2020
Bingo:
Are you suggesting “Front Range Johnny” with no verification, only 12 followers and being used as an example to prove a thesis of a piece might not be an entirely reliable example reporters should be putting on full blast?
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 19, 2020
Recommended
District, state . . . same difference:
I’m nit sure I’d trust the veracity of a tweeter saying he lives in Gardner’s “district.”
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) January 19, 2020
Pro-tip: If a reporter is talking about a bot, it’s only for a candidate they don’t agree with:
They are very concerned about the possibility of bots (that they don’t agree with) influencing the public on social media.
— Andrew (@andyndelaney) January 19, 2020
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member