The NY Times has a piece today about Shareblue, another group created by David Brock to help elect Hillary Clinton. Shareblue’s niche is offering the kind of unabashedly pro-Hillary pablum that even many of her progressives supporters find embarrassing:
The Brock network includes his Media Matters for America watchdog website; two pro-Clinton “super PACs,” the opposition research outfit American Bridge and the pro-Clinton fact-checking and reporter-spamming operation Correct the Record; and Shareblue, which filled the need, Mr. Brock said, for a progressive outlet that spoke directly to the grass roots and which “was avidly and unabashedly pro-Hillary.”…
Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.
I’ve written about the output of Shareblue before. In the midst of the Clinton email story, with every fact-checking organization in the country concluding many of of her statements about the private server were false, Peter Daou wrote an absurd article claiming she had never told a lie.
It’s the same formula that has worked for Media Matters: A transparent partisan agenda and a complete lack of shame. Case in point, Daou’s group stepped in to defend Hillary after she collapsed in the street, arguing it was a sign of strength:
When video of Mrs. Clinton falling ill on Sept. 11 exploded in the news media, the campaign, which had at first said she overheated, apologized for not revealing her diagnosis of pneumonia beforehand.
Correct the Record went virtually dark. “It was waiting for guidance from the campaign,” Mr. Brock explained.
But Mr. Daou quickly started defending Mrs. Clinton from critics on Twitter (“They should be ashamed”) and that evening posted an article on Shareblue about Mrs. Clinton’s grit, headlined “Hillary Clinton’s feat of strength obliterates months of health conspiracies.”
It was roundly mocked as a blatant example of Pravda-esque spin.
Even calling Daou’s output “an article” is generous. It’s a handful of tweets, nearly half of which were written by Daou himself. The point isn’t that this is convincing only that, in the midst of a heated campaign, there are thousands of people (including many in the media) who will latch on to anything to defends Hillary. That’s how you wind up with coverage of a candidate’s collapse in the street that sounds like this (courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon):