Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering posted an article attributing a goofy, yet harmless Youtube video to Rand Paul’s presidential campaign. The video was allegedly posted by America’s Liberty PAC (ALPAC), an independent Super PAC, which claims to support Sen. Rand Paul for president. Curiously, ALPAC’s website is still seeking to “Draft Rand Paul.”
Spiering’s article title “Team Rand Attacks ‘Canadian’ Ted Cruz” falsely attributes the pro-Paul video to the Rand Paul campaign. Even worse, the first sentence directly and explicitly places the Super PAC (and hence the video) under Paul’s control:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s America’s Liberty Super PAC is out with a new ad attacking Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as a “Canadian” who supports President Obama on domestic surveillance extensions in the Patriot Act.
Not until the fourth paragraph does the author admit his lies that the PAC has nothing to do with Rand Paul:
Technically, the ad is not endorsed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s campaign, but the Super PAC is endorsed by Paul and led by former campaign strategist Jesse Benton, who married into the Paul family and worked for not only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s Senate campaign but also Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.
A few things to point out here.
First, how was Spiering alerted of the video, especially so quickly? The Youtube channel in question, supposedly under control of ALPAC, was created on May 28, less than 24 hours before Spiering’s piece. The video has 25,000 views (as of May 29 @ 6:30pm EST), and that’s after the article hit Breitbart’s front page. Clearly Spiering had the inside track on this video, but who’s his source?
Second, the video is the only one on the channel. How did Spiering become aware of this video, which was only posted May 29 on a channel only established a day before? There’s no mention of either the Channel or video on ALPAC’s website. Has Spiering verified with ALPAC representatives that they created the channel and video? If they did create it, why not contact them?
Lastly, it’s important to understand the purpose of Spiering’s “article.” Clearly the article’s primary goal is to shape public opinion by reinforcing a false statement twice before letting the reading know the truth. It’s sad, but such lies are enough to skew an audience opinion of Rand Paul. Breitbart audience is composed primarily of Ted Cruz supporters (as evidenced by site commenters). Did the author bother to site facts only to deflect questions of journalistic integrity?
This isn’t Spiering’s first anti-Paul piece. Two days earlier, May 27, he gave Chris Christie a platform to Rand-bash, without even contacting the Paul campaign for rebuttal.
Here are a few gems from the comments section where readers clearly did not carefully read the article (which appears to be most of them). Perhaps Spiering should be thanked for demonstrating the ignorance of Breitbart’s readership.
And with that, Rand exposes himself as the common street dog fighter that he really is. Big mistake to piss off Cruz supporters this early on Rand. And btw, who are you trying to appeal to with that fake curly hair, you old white man.