I’m a free thinker, skeptic and cynic.
The reporting on Chorus triggered my spidey senses for cynicism. The implication of “Dark Money” is that it is the only influence, or the worst influence. Independent has taken on some meaning of journalism as being authentic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People do not disclose all their influences. Hunter S. Thompson was an advocate for extreme subjectivity using gonzo journalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity.
Implicit in the criticism of not revealing funding is that revealing funding somehow reveals bias where not revealing funding does not. How does that work? Do the words have magic in them?
For example, David Pakman has been called out for a long time for ignoring Gaza. So, how does taking hidden funding that requires not reporting on Gaza change anything? Also, Pakman is an influencer, not a journalist.
In my mind the issue is not secret influence, but a naivety displayed about cynicism. YouTube ad dollars influence by encouraging titles being clickbait. The title to the Wired article was clickbait stating Democratic influencers were taking dark money. The article stated that the identities of all the 90 people in the cohort were not known. How do you know they were registered Democrats? How did Wired know any of the people cited in the article were registered Democrats? There has been a huge increase in independent voter registration this last decade due to disgust with the Democratic party. The word Democratic could have been chosen not because it applied to the 90 people in the cohort, but because of who the perceived funding was coming from. But that also is problematic because dark money, by definition, has unknown funders.
“Chorus is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization.”
If Chorus is a Democratic operation then its 501(c)(4) status should be revoked.
Journalism is required to reflect reality, not opinion. When it is opinion it should be clearly noted. Implying the influencers in Chorus were Democrats is not true, it is unknown, and implying the dark money came from Democrats is untrue because dark money has secret funding.
Not to mention when the public sees dark money then they think political money, PACs. Wired made no effort to clarify this in the headline.
Can someone be an influencer and a journalist? Perhaps. My version of the Wired “journalist” is Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was called a journalist according to some and a bully by others. Presumably what makes the difference are the editors, like with Vanity Fair.
Personally I didn’t care one way or the other. Hitchens was generally forthright about his biases except with the Iraq War and War on Terrorism. It was embarrassing to see him try and defend objectivity about those wars.
The cynicism difference is that I never defended Hitchens from being a bully or subjective. That would be stupid. I’m a cynic.
The “left” has a cynicism problem. There are people who think being independent is somehow less influenced than mainstream media. That’s a problem. A problem I’m calling out.
Most influencers have no training whatsoever. Training about their own biases and how to safeguard against them. That’s fine as long as one is aware that is what’s going on. That’s not the case.
Has Wired reported Chorus to the IRS for being partisan? If not they should remove “Democratic” from the title and article.