Hugh Hewitt Quits the Washington Post On-Camera and Storms Off the Set Calling the Paper a "Unfair Election Ad"

Hugh Hewitt finally showed he's got a pair.

Definitely worth your watch. Gay black DEI propagandist Jonathan Capeheart and evil prog witch Ruth Marcus complain bitterly about Trump complaining about election irregularities -- without mentioning what Trump is complaining about.

Specifically, he was complaining about Democrat election officials sending people home on the last day of early in-person voting. The law says that if you're in line, the election site must stay open until you've voted. But the Democrat thugs broke the law, stopped the voting, and tried to keep Trump from picking up votes in Bucks County, PA.

The RNC -- not Trump -- went to court over this. The court agreed the election officials had broke the law, and ordered them to reopen in-person voting for a couple of more days to accomodate the people they had denied the right to vote to.

None of that is mentioned by Capeheart and Marcus. Which prompted Hugh Hewitt to justifiably rage-quit.

He didn't just quit the show -- he quit the failing propaganda outlet the Washington Post.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt resigned from the Washington Post after feuding Friday with two of the newspaper's liberal columnists during a live talk show -- calling it "the most unfair election ad I've ever been a part of."

Hewitt stormed off the set during the online show the "First Look" with liberal columnists Jonathan Capehart and Ruth Marcus that veered into whether former President Trump was "laying the groundwork" to contest Tuesday's election if he lost.

After being cut off by Capehart and accused by the MSNBC host of spouting misinformation, Hewitt ripped out his earpiece and said: "I'm done. This is the most unfair election ad I've ever been a part of."

Very related: Trump is suing the Washington Post for an illegal in-kind donation to Kamala Harris's campaign.

An "in-kind" donation is one not of money, but of some other thing of value.

In this case: The Washington Post has been buying and running ads on FaceBook repeating old hit piece stories on Trump, and positive stories about Kamala Harris.

This is obviously running ads against Trump and for Harris -- but without observing campaign donation limits, or even reporting them as donations.

Now, the Washington Post will say they're running these anti-Trump, pro-Kamala ads not to interfere in elections, but to woo back the 20% of their basket-case liberal subscribers who rage-quit the paper. They want to show that despite Bezos' decision to not endorse Kamala, they are just as braindead leftwing NPC crazyparrots as their readers.

I don't know if the law here requires "intent" or allows a defense of "well yes we ran election ads but not because we wanted to influence the election, but only to placate our quite provably insane readers."

Here is the complaint, filed by Harmeet Dhillon's lawfirm.

The Washington Post recently announced it would not endorse a presidential candidate, adecision the Post's owner defended on the basis that "Presidential endorsements do nothing to tipthe scales of an election."

Yet, on October 30, 2024, the news website Semafor published a report titled "Washington Post pays to boost stories critical of Trump as subscribers flee." The Semafor article discloses that, starting "on Monday," October 28, 2024--just over a week before Election Day--The Washington Post has "aggressively ramped up its paid advertising campaign, boosting dozens of articles related to the election."

As Semafor reported, this is no simple commercial marketing campaign.4: "While the
[Post] articles about Vice President Kamala Harris were relatively neutral in tone"--if not flattering--"and focused on her ... digital strategy, her policy proposals, and her chances of winning ..., the articles that the Post paid to highlight about [President] Trump told a different story." In fact, Semafor reported, the Washington Post has paid to "boost[] multiple critical articles" of President Trump through this sudden, last-minute advertising campaign.

The Federalist reports on another attempt to interfere in the elections: Kamala Harris's campaign is organizing efforts to mass-flag true statements about her to get them demoted or "community noted" to death, while also mass-upvoting positive stories about her.

BUSTED: The Inside Story Of How The Kamala Harris Campaign Manipulates Reddit (And Breaks The Rules) To Control The Platform

Part one of an investigation into how the Harris-Walz campaign is manipulating social media sites to artificially boost their popularity, spread election disinformation, and skirt election laws.

For years, many have speculated that Democrat political candidates may be filling social media with fake posts to deceive the public and make their campaigns and causes seem more popular than they are. These claims have often been dismissed, citing that Democrat voters are already more likely to be on the internet compared to their not-as-tech-savvy Republican counterparts. This would suggest that the constant flood of left-leaning content on websites such as Reddit was merely a reflection of the userbase. However, many people simply couldn't shake the feeling that something was just off, especially in the run up to major elections. Despite my fervent belief that something was amiss, I never had any direct proof that Democrats were actively manipulating social media.

That all changed two weeks ago, when X user @jessiprincey replied to one of my posts with a screenshot from a Discord server, seemingly related to the Harris-Walz campaign:

I immediately messaged Jess, and soon received a link to the Discord server where this operation was taking place. What I'd find there went far beyond algorithmic manipulation. I discovered massive "astroturfing" campaigns operating across multiple platforms. "Astroturfing" is a political and marketing term that describes creating swarms of coordinated and/or paid messages and posts to deceptively create the illusion of support from ordinary people. Essentially, "astroturfing" is the opposite of grassroots support.

In this case, there is a team of volunteers who spam social media with posts that specifically promote Kamala. They then have other users pretend to be random individuals who just happened across the post and decided to comment. It's no different than a shady company paying a team to write a bunch of fake Amazon reviews about their product to make it appear to be a better and more popular product than it is.

On Amazon, that might result in a product getting more sales. In a U.S. election, it could mean that the falsely advertised candidate receives more votes. This behavior is not only incredibly dishonest, but in many cases, it directly violates the Terms of Service they've agreed to by operating on certain social media platforms.

In part one of a three-part series, we're going to look at how the Harris-Walz campaign has manipulated the popular website Reddit, one of the top social media sites with 500 million users, to publish campaign propaganda.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:08 PM

| Access Comments