This past September 7, numerous right wing/anti-Hillary conspiracy outlets shared a photo purporting to show Hillary Clinton wearing a ‘hidden’ earpiece during her appearance at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief forum.
As Snopes pointed out, the most “prevalent accusation” circulating the web “was that Clinton was wearing an earpiece so her campaign team could furtively feed her answers to moderator Matt Lauer’s questions.”
The photo (see below) seemed to show something placed in Clinton’s left ear. But after other photos from the event were released, it became clear that the perceived object in the initial photo was simply a light reflection.
From Snopes:
Photographer Brendan Smialowski’s image has been cropped to show only Clinton’s face (and then blown up back to size), revealing what looks like a small light inside Clinton’s ear. However, this “object” can’t be seen in other photographs of the candidate from the same event…
Screenshots from footage of the forum captured by Snopes show that there was nothing in Clinton’s ear, other than the earrings she was wearing.
It’s bad enough that junk websites disseminate falsehoods to their large followings, but when organizations that most people agree are reputable start to dabble in the same out-of-context conspiracy mongering, it makes the spread of false information even more impervious to facts.
This is where the official Twitter account for Wikileaks comes in.
On Tuesday, Wikileaks posted a screenshot from an alleged hacked email where Clinton staffer Huma Abedin asks Clinton, “Did u take your earpiece or do I need to get it?”
The email is dated from September of 2009 and is provided with zero context, but it suggests that showing up to political forums with a secret earpiece is a habit with Clinton (below a screen shot in case Wikileaks comes to their senses and deletes the tweet):
Twitter user Parker Molloy, who is a writer at Upworthy, pointed out that the whistleblower bohemoth’s post was textbook conspiracy theorist logic.
In a sharp and powerful tweetstorm, Molloy dismantled Wikileaks’ post piece by piece, starting out by theorizing that Wikileaks’ inclusion of Abedin in their post was an effort to pander to those who’ve suggested that she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:
I can’t help but think @wikileaks is trying to make it more obvious they’re pandering to the anti-Semitic alt-right. pic.twitter.com/5f4ca7V5kX
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 8, 2016
But the most embarrassing revelation from Molloy was the fact the date of the email coincided with Clinton’s attendance at a U.N. hearing, where earpieces are required to hear language translations:
Also, the context of that “earpiece” email @wikileaks left out? She was at the UN that day. https://t.co/Nz0kCgqvGQ pic.twitter.com/QOlDyUKPLb
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 8, 2016
Which is a pretty normal place to have an earpiece, but hey, that doesn’t match @wikileaks propaganda, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 8, 2016
I mean, it took me all of 2 minutes to Google that info, but @wikileaks would rather you buy into a conspiracy theory about earpieces.
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 8, 2016
@wikileaks Is there a reason you shared that with deliberately misleading context?
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 8, 2016
Since she dared to challenge Wikileaks, conspiracy trolls are now targeting her:
Since tweeting about @wikileaks posting some conspiracy-mongering BS about earpieces, my mentions have been a flood of Guy Fawkes mask bros.
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
1/ Like… If you’re a “@wikileaks supporter” because you believe in exposing corruption or whatever, you need to be able to say “Hey,
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
2/ that’s BS” when they pull some nonsense about earpieces (and omitting that they we’re referencing a UN trip). If not, you’re a hack.
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
3/ In fact, if you support @wikileaks, you are a hack, end of story. This organization (and the man-child behind it) hasn’t been about
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
4/ exposing corruption (or whatever it is they say they do) in a long time — if they ever even did that. This is a BS propaganda machine
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
5/ that doesn’t give a crap about transparency. But hey, keep telling yourself that they’re these warriors for good because their propaganda
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
6/6 currently supports your political ideals. In the end, you’re being played.
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 9, 2016
With the argument of whether Wikileaks is a force for good aside (their whistleblowing on the Iraq war was invaluable), the organization has taken a curious anti-Hillary stance since the outset of the election, leaving many to wonder if the site’s founder Julian Assange is acting out a personal vendetta against the Democratic candidate.
Scrutiny, even exposing the secrets of politicians, is a welcome endeavor. But if an outlet has to resort to fraudulent stories to smear a candidate, it’s a good sign that the facts aren’t damning enough to get the job done.
[Daily Kos/Parker Molloy] Featured image: YouTube
Leave a Reply