It’s time to shut down The Federalist

The Federalist is coming down hard on fake news and quack remedies, and they can’t even be consistent about it. On the one hand, the coronavirus is a fake epidemic; on the other, the “specter of euthanasia” is raising it’s head, it’s a world-wide threat, it’s the world’s “biggest stress test since WWII”. On the third hand, it’s also full of puff pieces about how American free enterprise will beat it, and “How Grandmother’s Gargling Remedy Could Help Abate The Wuhan Flu”. (Yeah, they always call it the “Wuhan Flu”, because it wouldn’t be The Federalist without implicit racism.) It’s a disinformation site.

It’s as bad as Alex Jones, and deserves the same fate, scorn and contempt.


  1. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    The FeDerpalist is quite familiar to anyone who has been on the front lines of the climate wars. So obtuse, they can only be drawn on a sphere!

  2. Akira MacKenzie says

    Cue the libertarians (both the ACLU and the LP types) to lecture us about how free speech and freedom of the press applies to liars, that people are rational and can discern fact from falsehood or that they even have the right to believe what they want to no matter how false, that this is “dangerous,” etc., etc., blah blah blah.

  3. mythago says

    It’s been pointed out that there’s not much reason for the Federalist to be so aggressively secretive about their funding if it were merely “wack-ass right wing billionaire” – being known as on the payroll of the Mercers or the Kochs wouldn’t really hurt them – and so it’s got to be a source that would make them look very bad indeed, like a hostile state actor. There’s a plausible argument that it’s probably Saudia Arabia, given their buys in the American media market (remember the National Enquirer’s parent printing a vanity magazine?) and the Federalist’s early coverage of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

  4. unclefrogy says

    nice to see that their vainer of serious rationality is wearing thin.
    It would be nice if all these think tanks and opinion promoting groups would have to divulge their funding,
    I am not all that comfortable with secret societies and under the table funding, not sure if they are wholly compatible with representative democracy. though people have been persecuted in the past for their political beliefs. Groups and organizations that function as a respectable front and allow those who are the major support hide in anonymity because it would show negatively on them to be seen as promoting false and distorted information and on their positions, well that is a little different I think.
    uncle frogy