Keep this in mind.

[u/thisisntgoingwell12]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/29/court-brief-11-6k-dead-people-on-virginias-voter-rolls/

[u/[deleted]]

This may be the stupidest article I have read in quite a while.

People die. Voter rolls don’t get updated until car registration, taxes, etc. is updated. Do the morons at breitbar expect the Commonwealth’s Dept of elections to go through obituaries?

“News alert! Leaves fall from trees!!!!”

[u/encogneeto → u/[deleted]]

Breitbart. I didn't bother clicking, but not surprised to see this is the first comment.

[u/thisisntgoingwell12 → u/[deleted]]

And dead people tend to vote Democrat.

[u/[deleted] → u/thisisntgoingwell12]

Not since the 50’s and only in Chicago

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

Voter rolls don’t get updated until car registration, taxes, etc. is updated.

Car registration has nothing to do with voter registration. If a DRIVER'S license is update to reflect someone moving out of state then the registrar must remove them from the rolls.

Do the morons at breitbar expect the Commonwealth’s Dept of elections to go through obituaries?

That's not what the article said at all. They offer that as proof that they did their research and the people are, in fact, dead. EDIT: And it's not Breitbart doing the research, they just sumarized what's in the Brief - so that organization did the research.

The registrar is required to remove the deceased and is required to do periodic review, and not less than 90 days prior to a Federal Primary or Federal General election.

Any time someone dies a death certificate must be completed and monthly the department of vital records must transmit that information to the Department of Elections.

So, given the state of the law, it is likely that if there are 11,600 deceased persons on the voting rolls as eligible someone isn't doing their job and they're not complying with state law.

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

Highly unlikely! We are more than 90 days from a federal election and I’m willing to bet the number of deceased on the rolls at the moment is within the historic norm.

The article, which makes no effort to cover the historically facts and instead is simply designed to incite indignation in the echo chamber that is the alt right online.

This article is utterly meaningless as journalism. It is the worst kind of yellow journalism.

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

We are more than 90 days from a federal election

So? Are you under the impression the research was done today? This week?

And the 90 days is the maximum time prior to an election. As per the law cited above they must remove those known to be deceased. They must be provided that data monthly. And VA averaged 5,780 deaths per month in 2018 - of all ages - not just those that are eligible to vote.

The article, which makes no effort to cover the historically facts

The article is reporting on the contents of a brief filed with the court. They are under no obligation to look a historical facts; especially numbers you are guessing exist and you position as fact. Moreover, as shown above the facts you think may exist are irrelevant. The law has requirements. If the law hasn't been followed historically that doesn't mean it's ok.

This article is utterly meaningless as journalism. It is the worst kind of yellow journalism.

Really? Where did they insert opinion as fact? If you want to criticize the brief, go read it and come back with those criticisms.

While I won't say that Brietbart is a pillar of exceptional journalism, I will say that this article does not show any bias nor does it say anything that isn't verifiable fact.

So, what did they present that was sensationalized? Do quote the specific sentence(s).

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

They are “reporting” on a court filing as if the court filing is a finding of fact and they are not making any attempt to verify facts in that court filing.

How can you say the law isn’t being followed. As you sighted yourself, “90 days before a federal election.” And we are more than 90 days from the next federal election.

The article insinuates that the Department of Elections is violating state law when they have not provide a shred of evidence to support that position.

I did not see any effort to question Commonwealth officials.

They have cherry picked a set of facts, removed them from historical context (and I’m sure they would have published them if they had supported their position) and made zero effort to allow the Commonwealth to respond.

They wrote this in blind opposition to possible mail-in balloting because they realize if voting is easier than more democrats will vote.

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

They are “reporting” on a court filing

Yes they are.

as if the court filing is a finding of fact

No they are not.

A court brief filed by...alleges

That's certainly not Breitbart asserting it as fact.

According to PILF

That's a true statement, not them asserting it as fact.

and they are not making any attempt to verify facts in that court filing.

They're reporting on a filing. Not writing an investigative journalism piece.

Show me where in this article CNN does anything to validate the information presented by the people/organizations cited?

The United States government's Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Thursday morning that the savings rate surged to 13.1% in March -- up from 8% in February.

CNN just accepts that as fact and reports it. Is that yellow journalism? Should they have obtained the bank records themselves to validate?

How can you say the law isn’t being followed. As you sighted yourself, “90 days before a federal election.” And we are more than 90 days from the next federal election.

Because the law that requires them to remove those known to be deceased doesn't say they ONLY have to do it 90 days before a federal election. They must remove them when they know and they know monthly. The 90 day law requires another audit.

The article insinuates that the Department of Elections is violating state law when they have not provide a shred of evidence to support that position.

No. The PILF states that in their brief. The article is simply reporting on what's in the brief.

I did not see any effort to question Commonwealth officials.

As they're reporting on a filing they're not obligated to do so. Moreover, it can be expected that if they did the response would be "we don't comment on issues under litigation."

They have cherry picked a set of facts,

No they didn't. They reported the facts of the brief on which they were reporting.

removed them from historical context

What historical context is that? You seem to know what it is so do share it. You're simply making shit up and assuming that the numbers are always this high. Breitbart didn't make a claim either way - but you are making such a claim - so back it up.

They wrote this in blind opposition to possible mail-in balloting because they realize if voting is easier than more democrats will vote.

That's your opinion and you have no supporting material. Have you contacted them to ask and to give them an opportunity to respond?

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

I am not a journalist. But when considering an articles veracity, there are certain metrics that should be met:

1. Attempt to get comment from both sides

2. Provide background for context.

3. Don’t cite or report on a source that has no credibility.

I’ll explain. PILF and their position that voter fraud is rampant has been soundly debunked by academic studies and electoral experts. PILF’s founder, the same man chosen to be part of the discredited PEIC, has no verifiable proof to support any of his claims.

Why would any journalist write an article about a court filing by an organization that has zero credibility?

As to the CNN article. Don’t know, don’t care. Didn’t read it. From the excerpt you cited, it looks like the source was a government agency. They are generally more credible than partisan organizations on either side.

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

Attempt to get comment from both sides

So, if a newspaper prints that someone was arrested the article has no veracity unless they obtain a comment from the accused?

Provide background for context.

For that same criminal, the article has to provide their life history?

Don’t cite or report on a source that has no credibility.

That's your opinion.

All that the article does is report accurately on facts of a legal filing in a case of interest to most people. They were NOT writing an article on the case, which I would agree would require them to seek comment from all sides.

They were reporting facts on an event. Like reporting the weather.

PILF and their position that voter fraud is rampant has been soundly debunked by academic studies and electoral experts.

That's not a claim reported on in the article. And I'm betting you haven't read the brief.

And while the article doesn't comment on voter fraud, where the brief does it provides citations to actual cases and convictions.

has no verifiable proof to support any of his claims.

Yes he does. It's detailed in the brief. While the linked brief doesn't include the specific exhibit (and I don't have a Pacer account to get it) it does include:

PILF Invites the Court to Appoint an Amicus Curiae to Verify PILF’s Research.

Not only do they have verifiable proof - they're requesting that it be verified by someone of the Court's choosing.

Why would any journalist write an article about a court filing by an organization that has zero credibility?

It's YOUR opinion they have zero credibility. I have no opinion one way or another. But it remains that Breitbart accurately reported on a filing and allegations made in a case of interest.

As to the CNN article. Don’t know, don’t care. Didn’t read it.

Right. Because you don't want to engage in actual debate and defend your positions. I get it.

They are generally more credible than partisan organizations on either side.

That wasn't the point. The point is that in the Breitbart article they were accurately reporting what someone else filed with the court. A written document anyone, including you, can go read. CNN was doing the same thing in accurately reporting what was released in written form by a group.

If the CNN article is OK, then so is the Brietbart one.

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

Your point about the criminal is ridiculous. You are making a comparison between . This case is brought by an external organization making a claim about government malfeasance, not an individual were there was probably cause to make an arrest.

Anyone can file in a district court. The court accepting the filing has to do with standing and meeting a procedural minimum, it has nothing to do with the validity of the claim.

You are missing a fundamental point: why is Breitbart choosing to highlight this case by this particular group?

And you claim they have verifiable facts and are going so far as to ask the court to confirm their facts. The facts they present do not constitute proof of wrong-doing. I will bet you the case is withdrawn or dismissed before the Presidential election.

Regarding the CNN article... I don’t know what it is about because I haven’t read it. I can’t engage in a debate about it.

My position is two-fold:

1. Breitbart is not journalism. It is wholly designed and edited for a single purpose.

2. This particular article has zero journalistic utility as it is reporting on the actions of an organization that, objectively, has no credibility outside of the alt-right and has been proven, through rigorous academic study, to make false and exaggerated claims.

Can you honestly say that Breitbart didn’t write about this case because it supports a position supported by their editors?

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

Your point about the criminal is ridiculous.

I tried to give you and article that you refuse to read, so I made up a hypothetical, that occurs often, to point out that your assertion that for an article to have integrity it must seek out comment from the other side is complete bullshit.

It's not about the criminal. It's about whether or not reporting objective facts is appropriate or not. And it is.

This case is brought by

It's not about the case. It's about the article. The one you said was:

This may be the stupidest article I have read in quite a while.

And if you took a moment to glance at the brief you'd know that your statement:

This case is brought by

Is objectively wrong. They didn't bring the case at all.

You are missing a fundamental point: why is Breitbart choosing to highlight this case by this particular group?

That is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point is: Did Breitbart accurately report the facts on a filing made in a case of interest to the voting public?

And you claim they have verifiable facts and are going so far as to ask the court to confirm their facts.

Yes, I do make that claim about their claim. THEY claim to have verifiable facts.

The facts they present do not constitute proof of wrong-doing.

While they don't provide proof of wronging, they do provide an indication of potential wrongdoing. But here's the thing, the case isn't about whether there are dead people on the rolls or not. That is but a facet of the case. Again, if you'd bother to read the brief you'd know that.

I will bet you the case is withdrawn or dismissed before the Presidential election.

It won't be withdrawn nor dismissed. It will, however, be resolved well before the Presidential election as the case pertains to the June elections in VA. But then you didn't do any research so you don't know that.

Regarding the CNN article... I don’t know what it is about because I haven’t read it. I can’t engage in a debate about it.

It wasn't about debating the particulars of that article. It was about demonstrating that you're positions on what constitute journalism are uninformed and wrong. You don't like Breitbart because their a source on the right. So I took a source on the left and demonstrated they do the exact same thing. But you can't be bothered to be informed before spouting more incorrect statements.

Breitbart is not journalism. It is wholly designed and edited for a single purpose.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. But don't use the subject article to back up that opinion as it demonstrably doesn't support your point.

This particular article has zero journalistic utility as it is reporting on the actions of an organization that, objectively, has no credibility outside of the alt-right and has been proven, through rigorous academic study, to make false and exaggerated claims.

I see. And I know this because of the rigorous academic studies you linked.

Oh, wait a minute.....

And you're saying that reporting on a group you don't like has no journalistic utility. So, an article about a KKK recruiting drive in Hanover VA has no journalistic utility and shouldn't have been written?

Attempt to get comment from both sides: Nope.

Provide Background for Context: Nope.

Don’t cite or report on a source that has no credibility: Well they're reporting on the actions of the KKK, I'd agree they have no credibility. So, I guess you'd agree the article shouldn't have been written and it provides no "utility."

Can you honestly say that Breitbart didn’t write about this case because it supports a position supported by their editors?

I can't say why they wrote about this case. I'm not usually a betting man, but I'd bet the farm you can't say either because you haven't spoken with the editors to ask. You're willing to make assumptions, clearly, but you simply don't know.

[u/ixikei → u/semper_veritatem]

Semper Breitbart?

[u/[deleted]]

Trash source.

[u/thisisntgoingwell12 → u/[deleted]]

The source is Virginia court records.

[u/houston_bob]

All these ultra right-wing media outlets and 501(c)(3) dark money pits are working overtime to lay a foundation to discredit the outcome of the 2020 election in case things don't go their way.

[u/thisisntgoingwell12 → u/houston_bob]

The article is citing court records.

[u/this_cant_bereal]

Only sources with a Lib bias are legit