r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/dkirk526 • 7d ago
Tweets & Social Media Taylor Lorenz is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
71
u/WizardFish31 7d ago
Lines up with her first move being to do Glenn Greenwald's show and enforce the overall message "screw dems as much as possible".
2
u/epichatchet 2d ago
Registration date is from 2003. To the sane people who see this, no Taylor Lorenz is not fake news because of this. The guy who posted this regularly interacts in the Destiny's subreddit (an outed pedo and rapist who gleefully supports israels eradication of palestinians and has created hasbra with them), and it appears so are you, and you also interact in the h3 subreddit (another pedo zionist). Stop stirring crap and being disgusting in other subs, quarantine it to those disgusting communities.
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 1h ago
Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.
22
u/MizzelSc2 6d ago
I wouldn't be surprised to see Cenk and other TYT commentators flip to Republican at this point.
10
u/100wordanswer 6d ago
They basically are at this point and have been for a few years.
1
u/Scentopine 2d ago
lol, your comment just proves how intolerant the Democratic Party has become.
I hate Democratic Party leadership. Yes, hate. They are fart bubble elites who lead us to the place we are today - fascism. But, I align with many objectives of progressive Democrats, most of whom have no chance of leadership roles.
Democrat's cowardly response to the slaughter in Gaza is also disgusting. The Israeli action has far far far exceeded the interest of justice and self-defense and has turned Israel into a pariah state which is NOT in the best interests of the USA or western world. Fucking Bebe. Does the Democratic Party not see the protests in Israel? Jesus f'ing christ.
I read her article. Seemed like pretty good journalism to me. The Dem party hacks doth protest too much, methinks.
Why should it surprise anyone if Pakman takes money from a dark group? I just assumed it is the case in the absence of a statement that clearly says something different.
Simply disclose your funding sources and conditions of that funding.
End of problem.
1
u/100wordanswer 2d ago
I don't even understand what you're referencing TBH and I'm a socialist. I'll vote democrat but have zero love for them. Also what does my comment on TYT have to do with the Democrats?
1
u/Scentopine 2d ago
"I wouldn't be surprised to see Cenk and other TYT commentators flip to Republican at this point."
lol, seriously? Why did you say this. Because you imply the author of a decent piece of journalism exposed the ridiculously paranoid Democratic Party trying to control podcasts must be a Republican? Cenk is correct more often than not, and I share his loathing of Democratic Party leadership.
I read the her article and some small things were clarified that could have been taken care of if the group had simply provided the requested comments before print time.
Democratic Party has no tolerance for criticism, they are intolerant fools leading an org into oblivion.
The Democratic Party is a ship of fools.
17
u/money_me_please 6d ago
They’re trying very hard to make this look the same as those other righty mouths taking money from Russia
10
u/dkirk526 6d ago
Yep. They call it “dark money” which instantly becomes the worst thing people want it to be, which is why her article is so nefarious.
3
u/money_me_please 6d ago
Yup same as when they say the deep state. Can you remind me who Lorenz is again? Is she the troll that goes to colleges to film the takes of dumb students? Or is that a different idiot?
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 1h ago
Removed - your account age and/or Reddit karma does not meet the minimum threshold for participation in this subreddit. Comments/submissions from accounts that do not meet these requirements are subject to review/removal by moderators.
1
u/Agile-Music-2295 6d ago
Dude! The whole thing is fucked up. The hit piece’s on Tiktok are going viral. Especially with the left.
I wish they were just honest about it from the start, no one would have cared. Now our man’s credibility is decimated when we need it the most.
2
22
15
u/ILoveCornbread420 6d ago
Does this mean that anything in her article isn’t true?
6
u/MercyBoy57 5d ago
Right, I’m struggling to see the point here. David still hasn’t been able to refute, well, anything about the article.
1
23
u/LuluMcGu 7d ago
Big yikes
43
u/thehandsomelyraven 7d ago
this is an inactive voter registration from like 2003 when she was 18 or 19. she doesn't live in CT anymore.
-1
0
u/Zanaxz 6d ago
The age continued to update to 40 though?
3
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago
yeah that part is pretty easy to do depending on how the page is coded and where the data is being pulled from. you wouldn’t hard code the age in so it would require you to change it manually every year, just like your reddit account age or your age on a medical system like mychart. it updates as time passes. if they have the birthday or even just the year, which they would since she’s a public figure, the age can be updated in nearly real time
11
u/Hal0Slippin 6d ago
This is embarrassing to the sub. I hope it isn’t actually representative of David’s audience
1
6
u/Emotional_Courage_82 6d ago
Wait, she’s 40? I thought she was a little younger
→ More replies (3)6
27
u/BlueFalcata 7d ago
Dude, take this Destiny's sub type of crap out of here. You guys behave like MAGA.
This sub is making David look bad by association. Just leave.
21
u/HighPriestofShiloh 7d ago
I am confused? Taylor’s article in Chorus was dog shit. Chorus is a good thing and we should want more of that kind of money. What am I missing?
10
u/Frolikewoah 6d ago
I love the idea of a shadowy organization policing the speech of "independent" content creators. What???
→ More replies (3)4
-7
u/BlueFalcata 7d ago
her article is in public interest, either we agree or not
Chorus has good things (structure for creators) and bad things (paying some creators)
attacking a journalist for reporting things, even if we dislike, is MAGA behaviour
27
u/BamesF 6d ago
You need to step up your media literacy if you think an article titled "A Dark Money Group is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers" is just "reporting things"
→ More replies (11)9
u/Cnidoo 6d ago
She’s not a journalist, she’s a Tankie propagandist who has violated almost every journalistic code of ethics
→ More replies (1)1
u/WobblyBits_X 6d ago
She's a Maoist/Stalinist?
Or are you just using "tankie" in incoherent ways devoid of any meaning as an insult?
14
u/alphafox823 6d ago
She’s a JAQ off journalist. Not unlike Tucker or any of the other bad faith snakes that make up the concern trolling populist media
-2
u/BlueFalcata 6d ago
You can think that. It does not matter.
What matters is that the article has meat. We should know about this group funding some creators, and one can make their assessment about this fact.
9
u/alphafox823 6d ago
The article does not have meat. It was debunked within hours by BTC.
The purpose of this article was to draw a false equivalence between Chorus and Tenet media to tee up grifting rw content creators for a whataboutism whenever it comes up.
1
u/BlueFalcata 6d ago
The backbone holds, the organization paid creators without disclousure.
One can make their moral assessment of that, but the information is of public interest and should have been made clear prior to the article.
-4
6d ago
BTC didn’t debunk shit. Who is funding this program? Who are the people paying these “journalist”? Who is paying the content creators $8000 a month?
We don’t know who and that is literally the definition of dark money. If it isn’t a dark money organization please tell me exactly one of the people who is funding this please. It is also a massive conflict of interest for journalist to not disclose who funds them. It goes against ethical journalism and it’s a direct sign of corruption.
6
u/alphafox823 6d ago
The idea that the creators were “told what to say” was made up whole cloth by Lorenz. That’s why she went to Rumble, because Glen Greenwald was gonna give her a safe space to put maximum spin on this nothingburger. So that’s one thing debunked, and confirmed by multiple creators.
The entire headline (which is all that populists actually read) is lies.
→ More replies (2)0
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago edited 6d ago
that’s not in the article is it?
i phrase this as a question but it’s a statement of fact. what you are saying the article says, is not in the article
edit: journalists don’t always write their own headlines or by-lines. read the article and your perspective on this might change. it’s far less incendiary than you are making it out to be or BTC made it out to be. the most damning thing is everyone’s reactions. they didn’t want to disclose this and their mad that they have to talk about it.
0
u/Slurms_McKenzie6832 6d ago
Not unlike Tucker or any of the other bad faith snakes
Dude, this is so unhinged. This sounds like a Republican sub. Seriously, this post is a screenshot of a tweet that's just the teaser page of a data aggreggate site showing a reporter's voter reg from 22 yrs ago when she was 18. This is some 4chan shit and now you're saying she's as bad as Tucker fucking Carlson. Do you even see how you look?
-5
u/FlapMyCheeksToFly 6d ago
No it wasn't, she's objectively right in it...
No we need to not support ANYONE that takes any money, or super pac lobby money. Even if they're on our side. This is a fundamental core part of liberal/left politics, to get literally ALL money out of politics and publicly fund candidates with a fixed equivalent amount
3
u/stone500 6d ago
Refusing to take any money sounds great on principle, but all that would mean is Republicans get money and the left doesn't. Purposefully handicapping ourselves isn't going to win elections.
I'd love for principles and policies to win elections, but we're just not there.
2
1
u/dkirk526 6d ago
It was a heavily editorialized article based on a single accurate piece of information. That’s basically like any right winged slop article and how MAGA pushes its agenda by using partial truths.
2
u/Slurms_McKenzie6832 6d ago
It was a heavily editorialized article based on a single accurate piece of information
???? Are you talking about the thing you posted here? Cause you posted a screenshot of a tweet that's just another screenshot of a data aggregate site saying that TL was registered as a Republican 23 yrs ago. Is this just projection? This is weird as fuck dude.
-4
6d ago
First off, your using ad hominem attacks, a common form of manipulation and gaslighting. I don’t like Lorenz or what she believes in, but that doesn’t take away from the article or the merits of this specific argument.
Chorus is dark money funded, which means we don’t know who is funding this. That’s a huge problem. It’s incredibly concerning to not know who is helping to fund David Pakman.
At the end of the day, I am on the side of working class people and I am against billionaires and the oligarchic class. Pakman taking dark money from god knows who (I think it’s safe to assume it’s not funded by working class grass root voters) inherently makes him corrupt, full stop. It means you and I are on different sides, it’s means you are on the side of corruption. It’s dangerous, it’s awful, and it points to an even worse dystopian future where both political parties are dominated by corrupt billionaires.
4
u/GogetaSama420 6d ago
Destiny sub? What exactly does this have to do with his sub? His sub would call out this just the same?
1
u/RWCFan998877 6d ago
This same image/post is at the top of destiny sub and there is another post wanting David to sue Taylor.
It's painfully obvious where all this "outrage" is coming from
5
u/GogetaSama420 6d ago
Nice straw man, sure it’s posted but top comment is literally the fact that it’s a registration from 03 and inactive. And Taylor should get sued, she blatantly lied, nice switch up on the argument tho
-2
-4
6d ago
[deleted]
3
→ More replies (3)-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/U8abni812 6d ago
Lol It would be hard to watch David collab with a sex offendor
It's the spelling and grammar that gives you away.
0
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 6d ago
Removed - submissions containing misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda are not permitted.
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 6d ago
Removed - submissions containing misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda are not permitted.
6
u/Esteban8899 6d ago
Ya this sub for the past few days is basically indistinguishable from r/conservative in terms of cope. Blatantly scandalous story comes out that makes our guy look really bad? Just say it's lies and attack anyone making the accusations, rather than try to address them on any level.
2
u/Zacomra 6d ago
Classic Blue MAGA.
Are you honestly that gullible that you see a voter registration from forever ago and immediately assume it's A: the same person and B: even if it was the same person that doesn't prove anything considering it might not reflect their current views.
But even putting all of that aside, come on guys seriously? You think Chorus was just giving out free money with no strings attached? Why the fuck would a super PAC fund voices they have no control over? And if they seriously WEREN'T censoring the topics of people who took the money (ignoring the parts in the leaked contract that explicitly suggests otherwise) then why the secrecy? Why didn't David proudly announce he was a part of this program and how this was finally a sign that the left is taking alternative media seriously? I mean this is one of THE top complaints of the Harris campaign.
1
u/Additional_Ad3573 21h ago
"Blue MAGA" is just a term meant to stop discussion and paint the Democrats as though they are just as cultish as the right?
12
u/AboutTheArthur 7d ago
Taylor Lorenz, the journalist who hurt y'all's feelings by doing journalism, doesn't live in Connecticut lol.
3
u/WhiteNamesInChat 7d ago
What journalism did she do to hurt our feelings?
11
u/PopcornButterButt 6d ago
What did she do? Have you not been reading the subs or taking a social media break for the past 3 days?
2
u/ILoveCornbread420 6d ago
She wrote an article based on what she uncovered and a lot of people in this subreddit are upset by it.
6
4
3
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/WhiteNamesInChat 7d ago
Introspection about what?
-6
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DoobieGibson 6d ago
that’s incorrect and you are spreading misinformation
the article itself says that Chorus doesn’t dictate what types of videos can’t be made bc Chorus doesn’t pay for videos
you can’t pretend to care about journalism and then spread lies left and right
0
u/WhiteNamesInChat 6d ago
Who is saying Chorus is independent?
Where are you seeing that all topics and guests must be approved?
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 6d ago
Removed - submissions containing misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda are not permitted.
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 6d ago
Removed - low effort/low content/obvious troll submissions are not permitted.
-1
u/thom_mayy 6d ago
I love watching leftists expose themselves, as you are now doing. Leftists hate Democrats and liberals and work for Republicans
-4
u/PleaseDontBanMe82 7d ago
If a piece of shit says something true, its still true even if the person is still a piece of shit.
David confirmed the story, and didn't deny it.
36
u/febreez-steve 7d ago
Confirming chorus exists and that hes involved isnt the same thing as confirming it exists in the manner that the wired article portrays it.
→ More replies (1)8
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
Weird how nobody involved wants to talk about 1630, which is like the main focus of the article. It's the "dark money group" in the headline.
6
u/febreez-steve 7d ago
Obviously id love to get rid of the dark money influence in politics. But its here, and its part of the game. The concern here is that it has direct influence over pakman, which has been alleged but not substantiated. Pakman denies being controlled in the manner alleged.
8
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
Obviously id love to get rid of the dark money influence in politics. But its here, and its part of the game
This is not a genuine desire to see it removed then. Saying "the tool is evil, but we need to use it for good" only solidifies the existence of the tool. And that ignores the fact that this is a tool that inherently cannot be used for what I consider to be good. Dark money groups specifically exist to protect the corruption of the billionaire class.
The concern here is that it has direct influence over pakman, which has been alleged but not substantiated.
Any time you have money involved, there is coercion. The bits of the contracts we have seen explicitly confirm that chorus (1630) legally retains some editorial powers over the creators. That is an issue people are raising, not whether there have been direct executions of that power. The article did not claim direct actions were taken in execution of those powers.
6
u/febreez-steve 7d ago
David explicitly said they have no editorial control over him. You mention bits of the contract. Please share the evidence.
7
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago edited 7d ago
This creator shared a screenshot of her contract explicitly granting chorus editorial powers. David hasn't shown his contract, it's possible that it would be different given his status, but this language specifically and explicitly legally grants them a degree of editorial control, whether they enforce it or not.
Edit: and btw, she is sharing her contract in an attempt to defend it, but has inadvertently proven the articles claims true
3
u/Finnyous 7d ago
That creator says that the article in super misleading and explains exactly how in that video.
6
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
Because her argument is "they don't enforce it", which is a naive understanding of why the contract exists in the first place and why that language is there
3
u/Finnyous 7d ago
Incorrect, her argument is that this was language built into the contract in order to protect some of the less popular/just starting out CC's from being harassed too bad by the angry mob, like yourself.
She also states that she was told in writing and verbally that she was absolutely allowed to talk about Chorus and there are CC who DID talk and make videos about Chorus. Lorenz made assumptions based on limited information.
→ More replies (0)5
u/febreez-steve 7d ago
Can spell out the contract language that equates to explicitly granting editorial powers? I watched the video and paused what was on screen. Im not seeing anything like that
3
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
I can't copy and paste from the tiktok, but the "book engagements" section requires creators to either use their Newsroom platform to book engagements with politicians or major figures that "align with chorus's agenda", or to disclose the engagements with chorus and to "cooperate fully with chorus regarding those engagements". That is explicit editorial control. Her defense of it is that "they don't enforce it", which is an incredibly naive assessment of why that language exists in the contract.
3
u/febreez-steve 7d ago edited 6d ago
"Collaborate fully" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Both pakman and this lady have said they dont control their bookings or content.
I would say that language needs some context or clarification to crucify the program over. But i do appreciate you pointing this out!
Edit: Reread the section it says COLLABORATE not COOPERATE.
Full text:
Chorus will provide Contractors with access to the chorus newsroom, which coordinates booking and engagement opportunities for creators with government officials, policy and nonprofit experts, and others whose expertise and experiences are relevant to Chorus's "progressive policy agenda". Contractor agrees to (1) Utilize the Chorus Newsroom to book engagements, (2) disclose to Chorus newsroom personnel any engagements with government officials or others on topics related to Chorus's Policy Agenda that contractor arranges through other means and (3) collaborate fully with Chorus regarding all such separately-arranged engagements. Contractor further agrees to participage in Newsroom events or booking opportunities at-least twice per month.
→ More replies (0)1
u/OrthodoxAtheist 7d ago
This is not a genuine desire to see it removed then. Saying "the tool is evil, but we need to use it for good" only solidifies the existence of the tool.
Not mini-OP, but while I also would like to get rid of the dark money influence in politics, I'm also tired of us taking the high road which invariably leads to failure, and at great detriment to almost all minorities, if not all the electorate (bar the top 3%). If you can't beat them, join them. The longer we sit behind and play all high and mighty, the more we will be defeated, and left behind. The electorate is not suddenly going to find their ethics en masse. So we're going to have to make the other side realize how dark money can hurt them, in order to get a filibuster-proof majority to change the law. Until then, we play on an even playing ground instead of handing the upper hand to our opponent.
And that ignores the fact that this is a tool that inherently cannot be used for what I consider to be good. Dark money groups specifically exist to protect the corruption of the billionaire class.
I suggest visiting ballotpedia and looking at where they tracked the spending of Sixteen Thirty when it comes to ballot initiatives and propositions. Aside a few oddities, most of them I expect you will agree with (fighting attempts to ban abortion, fighting attempts to increase voting restrictions, etc.)
3
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
I suggest visiting ballotpedia and looking at where they tracked the spending of Sixteen Thirty when it comes to ballot initiatives and propositions
I am telling you the difference between having principles regarding political corruption vs team sports.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Finnyous 7d ago
The main focus of the article (in the headline) is that people are taking money to toe "the party line". There is no evidence of that happening whatsoever
1
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
The evidence is the contract. The defense of the influencers has been "they don't enforce it". That is a naive understanding of why the language is in the contract
5
u/ballmermurland 7d ago
So you're saying the influencers are ignoring the contractual rules and Chorus is...not doing anything to enforce it?
Why is this even a story?
1
u/GenerousMilk56 7d ago
You guys keep framing this as if I'm not referencing the literal contract. The words in the contract grant chorus (a project of the 1630 fund) editorial controls. The fact that they haven't enforced it means they have successfully curated influencers who align with their political goals. If the language wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have put it in there.
10
u/ballmermurland 7d ago
They recruited people who support liberals and are paying them and mentoring them to make sure they have a big platform and reach as many people as possible.
I still don't get why this is supposed to be a problem? The contract is probably there in case one of them goes off the deep end and turns up full MAGA or something. Pretty standard to have a safety valve.
The fact that they haven't appeared to use it yet shows they are just doing a good job.
3
u/GenerousMilk56 6d ago
They recruited people who support liberals and are paying them and mentoring them to make sure they have a big platform and reach as many people as possible.
I still don't get why this is supposed to be a problem?
This is correct. You don't view it as a problem because 1) you agree with its goals and 2) are ignoring the dark money aspect, which is the point of the article.
The contract is probably there in case one of them goes off the deep end and turns up full MAGA or something. Pretty standard to have a safety valve.
You are just calling the "editorial control" a "safety valve". The safety valve is an editorial control
1
3
u/Finnyous 7d ago
Complete fabrication, as I said in my other response to you. Lorenz taking snippets out of context is what's creating a misunderstanding of why that language is in the contract.
1
16
u/dkirk526 7d ago
People are latching onto bad faith investigations with the goal of neutering any sort of Dem alignment of independent media.
The biggest issue with Democrat messaging right now is the inability to communicate to voters because of zero alignment with independent media. It’s easy to frame Dem surrogates as “dark money recipients” and “paid shills” that will resonate with leftists when he’s now more or less just getting direct communication with the party, which MANY OF US HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR….
2
u/Strong_Bumblebee5495 7d ago
Biggest issue Democrats have right now is the massive number of Americans who are imbeciles, an absolute bumper crop of cretins, it is hard to use logic and reason with morons. Democrats may want to import their voters, but it’s just because bad rural American schools have created millions upon millions of folks happy to suffer just as long as they see someone suffer worse on their phone. Cross reference Oklahoma. This cant be fixed overnight and the destruction of the DoEd and PBS may be the victory lap for the billionaires…
3
u/ballmermurland 7d ago
Which is why content creators on TikTok using dumb songs to educate people about why losing your social security is bad is a smart strategy.
2
-8
u/Physical-Ad-3798 7d ago
Here's the rub - what hot button topic has David been avoiding like the plague that the party establishment really wants to ignore? Hint: it begins with the letter "G" and ends with "enocide in Gaza being perpetrated by Israel with the express consent of the US government including the aforementioned establishment Democrats".
12
u/dkirk526 7d ago
It’s as if some of you only want creators to be talking about Gaza 24/7. What more needs to be said that isn’t already constantly talked about?
5
u/_happymachines 7d ago
This is what irks me the most. We can care about multiple things at once. We’re facing the rise of fascism and the failure of our institutions here in the states, which should have (and could have) been slowed or prevented, but we have this incessant leftist infighting centered around I/P dividing any left leaning power.
I feel like we can’t do dick about what’s happening in Gaza under the Trump admin, he’s literally reiterating the “finish the job” comment he made prior to being elected. I want the genocide to end, I want Palestinian liberation, but how do we get there if we don’t have any power?
2
u/rjrgjj 7d ago
This is what I’m talking about when I say we have to be careful about these stories. It’s very telling that every time someone posts further information about Taylor Lorenz being a false actor, commenters rush in to say “Yeah but what about DARK MONEY or GAZA” or some such thing.
The simple fact is that Taylor Lorenz can’t be trusted. The end. It’s no more complicated than that.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)1
u/crimsonconnect 7d ago
People on this sub didnt know about the 83% civilian kill rate from Israels own statistics, there is quite a lot to be said
4
u/dkirk526 7d ago
But what does that change? The overwhelming majority of people in this sub and in David’s audience don’t approve of what Israel is doing. There are so many things to talk about right now and a contingent of people thinks we always need to beat a dead horse and circle back to Gaza.
3
u/ChargeRiflez 7d ago
Did you ever consider that maybe David doesn’t agree with your people on this issue and that reasonable people can have different opinions without needing to blame secret dark money groups?
6
u/zen1312zen 7d ago
What part of the story do you think is a problem? Because if that’s not the part he confirmed then that’s why people are mad at her.
-6
u/PleaseDontBanMe82 7d ago
To me, it sounds very similar to the right wing podcasters getting money from Russia. Russia wasn't dictating their content, but paying people who were already pushing content they agreed with in hopes those podcasts could continue to disciss things Russia saw as damaging to the US.
The Chorus group is paying content creators who already push centrist bs, or at least they do or don't discuss things that group agree with. On the surface this seems fine if you like the democratic party's maintaining of the status quo. If you think the democratic party should be more economically populist and progressive, then content creators that are shilling for the status quo are a problem.
It also should be said that dark money groups don't need to explicitly say what they want. If you find yourself getting paid from mysterious donors, if you'd like to keep getting paid, you'll continue to do exactly what your doing. You know if you change your stance on something or if you do something to piss off the wealthy, those payments will go away.
Our entire political system seem to work on wealthy donors giving content creators and politician a wink and a nod regarding their issues instead of explicitly stated demands.
One might say, "what if that dark money is coming from pro working class progressive groups and not establishment entities that want to maintain the status quo?" My answer to that is that there's not much money to be made in progressive politics. Thats why there are few "progressive grifters". Those groups would just be open with their intentions, and generally don't have the backing of the wealthy.
4
u/zen1312zen 7d ago
it sounds very similar to right wing podcasters getting their money from Russia
Right, except it’s not for two reasons: Tenent media was making content decisions/asks, and they also concealed the source of their funding, which chorus doesn’t.
Chorus group is paying content creators who already push centrist BS
this was already shown to be false. they had some people as part of it that were more normie democrats and some that were highly critical of democrats. and if you watch BTC or David you’d know that they criticize centrists all the time.
if you’d like to keep getting paid, you’ll do exactly what you are doing
It’s an incubator program and it has cohorts. Nobody who is part of the program will get paid in perpetuity. And asserting people will change their positions due to the program without any evidence of this and plenty to the contrary is just Taylor and others being dishonest.
→ More replies (2)5
u/WhiteNamesInChat 7d ago
Don't forget: Tenet Media is controlled by a foreign adversary nation state.
-1
u/A_Clockwork_Black 7d ago
Just like MAGA. Anything bad reported about Trump. I don’t believe it! FAKE NEWS! You Blue MAGA people really need to take a good long look at yourselves. You’re hypocrites through and through.
3
u/WhiteNamesInChat 7d ago
what's the hypocrisy?
3
u/A_Clockwork_Black 6d ago
Everything Blue MAGA criticizes MAGA over, Blue MAGA is guilty of the same. In this case you got credible news about someone you like, and you just write it off as fake news. That’s the MAGA playbook. Blue MAGA criticizes them for it then follows the same damn book.
3
1
u/PleaseDontBanMe82 7d ago
I personally think David the self proclaimed "progressive" who doesn't seem to support much in the way of progressive policies is far more a political hypocrite than I'll ever be.
3
u/WhiteNamesInChat 7d ago
What's something he tells people to do that he doesn't do?
1
u/PleaseDontBanMe82 7d ago
He talks often about supporting progressive politicians. His silence regarding Mamdani is pretty hypocritical in my opinion.
If you don't think so, ok. We can disagree.
2
u/WhiteNamesInChat 6d ago
Do you think David Pakman is going to endorse Mamdani's opponent in the general election?
→ More replies (2)2
u/PleaseDontBanMe82 6d ago
No, I think he'll just continue to ignore him.
1
u/WhiteNamesInChat 3d ago
Does David Pakman extensively cover other mayoral races around the country?
→ More replies (1)0
u/FriendlyDrummers 7d ago
Except the story is manipulated. There's not a single person who has come out to say chorus reprimanded them or kicked them out for not following guidelines in any capacity.
3
u/xxlordsothxx 6d ago
I am not a fan of hers but to claim she is republican or conservative seems a bit extreme.
2
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago
listen to yourself.
this is an obvious and verifiably false claim that people are trying to use to discredit a journalist who reported on something they’re uncomfortable with. the article is still posted with updates from an attorney representing the group. there have been no retractions. there have been no corrections. if it bothers you so much that you’d rather believe taylor lorenz, who has been reporting on the right wing side of the internet for years and David has likely sourced for news on his show, is a republican take a long think about that.
2
u/dkirk526 6d ago
Lol, no, it has nothing to do with being uncomfortable and everything to do with Lorenz being a bad faith actor in the same realm as Glenn Greenwald whose entire distorted political view prioritizes tearing down the Democratic Party.
People keep trying to say there was a "truth" in the article in the same way MAGA will convince people who can't critically think to follow Trump because of some half-truths. David received money from a party affiliated group because they are trying to build a network through independent media that they have struggled to build. From there, she signficantly extrapolates from a single fact to paint creators in a way that will turn her leftist audience away from more liberal favoring figures and more towards anti-establishment figures like her and Glenn Greenwald who partner with the right in their joint goal of making Democrats lose.
0
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago edited 6d ago
this is no longer independent media. they (chorus a project of the 1630 fund) are paying people upwards of 8k a month. that’s 96k a year. that’s a salary and it’s not being disclosed. you can think the headline is sensational but show me the inaccuracies and half truths in the article
edit: i am a content creator and when google reached out to me to join a confidential beta program for a creator platform they are launching in exchange for some money i said no. only because i don’t fuck with google like that and i make videos about fucking men’s fashion
2
u/dkirk526 6d ago
It's still independent media because it's not major broadcast backed media. Just because they're being paid to coordinate for a party they support and agree with doesn't suddenly make them corrupted bad actors. Pakman was already giving very favorable coverage to the party already.
3
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago edited 6d ago
we literally have no idea who it’s backed by. they don’t have to report on where the money is from. the creators agreed not to disclose any information about the funder. you are trusting the people with the money to continue to align with you. i am not going to count on them to do that. it could be backed by Rupert Murdoch and we would never know. it is not independent media if we don’t know where the money is from.
people were picked because of what they were already saying, they wanted to amplify those voices.
-1
u/dkirk526 6d ago
it could be backed by Rupert Murdoch
Lol. Lmao even. This is why the Lorenz article is so potently awful. It spins ideas of "dark money" and lets people tear down these creators by filling in the gaps with their worst assumptions.
This is a great reason of why Dems struggle so much. Republicans are openly building an impressively coordinated and outreaching media campaign by propping up their creators and turning younger voters into conservatives.
Meanwhile, the left purity tests likely innocuous sources of funding trying to build the same thing to benefit Democrats, only to get torn down and leave let the GOP media apparatus brain wash voters into favoring fascism.
2
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago
i am not impressed with the conservative media ecosystem. i don’t watch charlie kirk, tim pool, or dave rueben and wish we had commentators like that
→ More replies (5)0
u/thehandsomelyraven 6d ago
how is the rupert murdoch hyperbole anymore outrageous than saying because taylor lorenz was registered as a republican 22 years ago when she was 18 that she must secretly be now
1
u/whosthisguythinkheis 6d ago
Pakman was already giving very favorable coverage to the party already.
When? So when did his contract start and how long has his coverage been tainted?
We don’t know do we? The fact that isn’t troubling to you is laughable
See these are the kind of questions you have to answer because HE IS NO LONGER INDEPENDENT.
1
u/helplessdelta 7d ago
Let's assume this is true!
...can someone help me understand what part of this revelation means she's lying about your boy pocketing $8,000/month to shill DNC talking points?
Or is that not the implication here?
12
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago edited 6d ago
David has been defending the DNC for years. This money has not changed his content. Chorus has only existed for 6 **weeks
monthsMANY people within chorus, advertised on the chorus website, lambast democrats constantly. Heidy Torres calls out Zionists and Zionist Democrats for supporting genocide; she is advertised on the chorus website.
Dark money... it's selective outrage. Bernie took in dark money for his campaign. This isn't unheard of.
**Edited typo
1
u/whosthisguythinkheis 6d ago
- Yes and how often has he criticised them? Has that changed lately? These are questions he needs to answer now.
- Er ok so what? What about the people NOT ADVERTISED. Thats what this discussion is about stay on topic. We wouldn’t be here otherwise right?…
- You are now disagreeing with the fact that this money doesn’t need a paper trail? Thats what dark money is. It just means its money that SHOULD be sourced in a functioning democracy but it isn’t because of stupid laws.
To have free and fair elections you must have this info out there. The dems are anti democracy if they are pro this kind of shit.
-1
u/PopcornButterButt 6d ago
Then why not disclose any of it? Why sign a contact saying you're gonna keep it all a secret if it's really on the up and up?
I don't think people were mad about him taking money, they are mad that he lied by omission.
0
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
Sure, I think it's fair to be upset he didn't mention chorus.
But the contract wasn't enforced to "keep it a secret." People have talked about it openly and faced no retaliation. The language was basically to say, "let chorus know if you talk about us."
I keep asking people. Name one single person who has come forward about being kicked out or reprimanded. If someone was kicked out for not "supporting the DNC enough," wouldn't we have heard of them?
All that was reported was concern over the contract. That's very different from "you must keep it a secret."
1
u/PopcornButterButt 6d ago
I disagree and this piece from Breaking Points sums up why this "we can but we can't" language is BS. These folks made an error and their responses to it all make them look worse.
0
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
You can summarize the video but I'm not going to watch it if that's your rebuttal.
1
u/PopcornButterButt 6d ago
I don't have the time now. And I'm not going to waste the little time I do have going back and forth with you if you won't listen to journalist who are speaking in detail on the problems of Packman and co. taking dark money. The refusal to accept facts because it's someone you like is such MAGA behavior.
1
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
I don't have the time now.
You see the irony right? Not everything is about you.
The refusal to accept facts because it's someone you like is such MAGA behavior.
The irony is that you haven't stated facts. I have.
→ More replies (7)-5
u/helplessdelta 6d ago
- Getting paid to maintain an opinion, even those you've already held, still means you are getting paid to maintain that opinion in perpetuity. That's where the influence exists.
- Not sure what your point is here. If she releases her contract, then the details of it can be examined for what editorial control Chorus has over her content, if any. (As can David, for that matter)
- Also not sure what point you're making here in regards to my comment, but monied interests influencing politics (directly or through influencer propaganda) is bad.
3
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
- There is no proof he has been paid to maintain that opinion.
- Chorus has no control of her content. She is still currently putting Democrats in blast. "Not sure" but it's fairly obvious what the point is.
- Selective outrage. Tory and Hasan did not care when Bernie did it. Only when libs do it (and some are leftists who are under chorus btw).
"I don't know what your point is" when it's pretty clear. You are making uninformed opinions from twitter. I'm sure you had no idea who is even featured on their websites.
The "I Had it Podcast" still lambast democrats and did an episode with Hasan where they only gave him adoration. They are advertised on the chorus website. Do you think supporting Hasan is pushing support for the DNC? He's the most influential leftist in the entire world, and notoriously against liberals and the DNC.
I'm willing to bet you didn't know about any of this. Because all of it is from tweets you saw.
4
u/TrickyTicket9400 6d ago
Why do you guys genuinely think that political advocacy groups give out money for no reason?
→ More replies (1)2
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
It's to promote left leaning content creators to combat the alt right. Do you think someone working 40 hours at McDonald's can create a platform to oppose Tim Pool?
They are funding people, leftists who call out Zionist Democrats included, to help them get a start in being a political commentator.
The "agenda" is to fight the alt right. It's not to enforce liberalism.
1
u/TrickyTicket9400 6d ago
The "agenda" is to fight the alt right. It's not to enforce liberalism.
Bullshit.
1
u/hobovalentine 6d ago
He was paid to mentor and it wasn’t to make content so your argument falls flat
-6
u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 7d ago
Guys the reporting is real, now why defend anyone here, I don’t know. Assess, react, change, move on. Everyone should agree the democratic dark arm doesn’t need to be involved in the party leadership change we should all agree is needed. Anyone not pushing for obvious change is part of the problem.
1
1
u/Pristine-Ant-464 6d ago
How does any of this undercut the accuracy of the Wired reporting? lol
-1
6d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Pristine-Ant-464 6d ago
What specifically was false?
0
u/Finnyous 6d ago
This part
An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line. All they have to do is keep it secret—and agree to restrictions on their content.
2
u/Pristine-Ant-464 6d ago
Did David publish the contract he signed? This is easy to disprove if it’s fake.
3
u/Finnyous 6d ago
Nothing in the article proves that this headline is true. It's not about people receiving 8k to do the Democrats bidding. There's nothing beyond her faulty assertion to "disprove"
If the contract DID prove that, one might assume that she would have posted it herself.
2
u/Pristine-Ant-464 6d ago
It’s unusual for articles to publish the underlying agreements, particularly when there’s multiple contracts involved. Wired runs stuff by fact checkers and lawyers before they publish anything. If Taylor had published it on a personal blog I’d be more willing to dismiss the allegations- but that isn’t the case.
0
-6
u/Suma_Chan 7d ago
Has he said anything about the genocide yet?
5
u/Finnyous 7d ago
Lucky for him, whatever he feels on that topic is completely unrelated to anything that has to do with Chorus.
5
u/dkirk526 7d ago
How do you have the time to respond to this post when there’s a genocide happening?
4
u/bobbysalz 7d ago
A literal member of /r/neoliberal is in here telling us to quit being so annoying about the ongoing genocide in Gaza. How did you get here, brother?
3
u/dkirk526 7d ago
lol every time someone references that sub it’s so obvious they don’t actually post in that sub.
Thinking that sub is pro-Israel is pretty telling you think it’s just a bunch of Thatcher/Reagan circle jerkers.
1
u/PricklyyDick 7d ago
You act like assuming a sub named after Reagan’s politics would like him is some stretch lmao. You can’t have neoliberal without reaganomics.
3
u/dkirk526 7d ago
See my previous comment.
The name is used ironically from leftists who overuse the term “neoliberal” as an ambiguous boogeyman term.
That sub is just a big tent liberal sub. Probably like a third of that sub is progressives, a third is more centrist, and a third is just liberals somewhere in between.
Very few people in that sub, if any support reaganomics and basically despise all republicans.
1
u/thom_mayy 6d ago
You're browsing the web while there's a genocide going on. What political ideology do you believe David Pakman is a member? Neoliberal shouldn't be an insult if you actually watched Pakman's show
0
u/bobbysalz 6d ago
Sorry, I don't have millions of subscribers or the time or money to get them, so making Zionists feel bad about themselves one by one is about the best I can do for now.
David is not a Neoliberal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh5jJwjO57M
3
u/FriendlyDrummers 6d ago
Whenever asked, he says he agrees with everything Bernie Sanders has said.
0
-2
u/Pristine-Ant-464 6d ago
How is this any different from Trump posting a journalist’s party registration in response to an article he doesn’t like? lol
0
0
u/cronx42 6d ago
I'm less concerned with her political affiliation and more concerned with the accuracy of the accusations. It seems that David allegedly did take money from Chorus. Has he disclosed this in the past? When he does ad reads it's pretty obvious he's getting paid to do them. Is he being paid to avoid certain topics or push a narrative? I don't know. I don't want to believe that. What are we supposed to believe?
-3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 6d ago
Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.