EXCLUSIVE: Facebook’s Ministry of Truth Demands BLP Modify Epstein Story or Face Wrath of Algorithm
A Facebook-approved fact checker, led by a man who worked for decades at fake news CNN, attacked Big League Politics recently for providing reporting to our readers surrounding the mysterious circumstances regarding the suicide of Democrat-affiliated sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.
The article published on Aug. 10 by Big League Politics referenced a report about a camera malfunction that allegedly occurred before Epstein’s death, preventing any video of his alleged suicide from being captures. The video referenced in the article still hasn’t been released to the public, but that didn’t stop Facebook’s ministry of truth from calling story “fake news.”
“There were no media reports that a camera monitoring Epstein’s cell area malfunctioned in the hours before the accused sex traffickers death on Saturday August 10, 2019,” claimed Alan Duke, who worked for CNN for 26 years before becoming a tool for Mark Zuckerberg’s ministry of truth.
Duke also headlined his smear article, “NO Report.”
Duke’s article is demonstrably false, as the report mentioned in the article can be seen here:
BREAKING: Alleged “camera malfunction” last night at MCC where Jeffrey Epstein was locked up.#EpsteinFiles
— Michael Coudrey (@MichaelCoudrey) August 10, 2019
We reached out to Duke to give him an attempt to retract his false fact check, but he was noncompliant and belligerent during the correspondence.
Here is text of the initial e-mail that was sent to Duke:
I am reaching out about your “fact check” of my article on Big League Politics:
I am wondering why you didn’t reach out to me before publishing that as well as what was false about the article I wrote specifically.
You listed the report that I referenced in your article, but claimed said it was not a report because the report was posted on social media.
Is this just an arbitrary justification you made up for the purposes of promoting your preferred narrative, or is there some kind of legitimate basis to your distinction?
Here is Duke’s follow-up, where he issued an ultimatum of sorts that we modify our article to please the powers at be (him) in an effort to erase the false smear bestowed upon our website by Zuckerberg’s Agent of Truth.
Your story was one of about 100 we flagged on this false info. We do often reach out to websites if we have had a previously dialogue with them, as we are more likely to have good contact info.
We did reach out to Michael Coudrey, the “digital info warfare” marketer who initially tweeted the false information. As you likely know, the past several days have confirmed out conclusion that the “camera malfunction” claim was false. In fact, cameras confirmed the guards were not doing their jobs properly and they are suspended.
We did not have a narrative. We do have a mission of countering crappy “reporting” that repeats unsourced tweets by someone with an agenda (false narrative.) Basing this sensational claim on Coudrey’s tweet put you on thin ice.
Is this an appeal? Having you revised your article based on our corrections guidlines (see this link: https://leadstories.com/corrections-policy.html )?
Or are you insisting that the claim that the cameras malfunctioned is valid and the source was good?
Please let us know.
Notice how Duke treats other reports with no evidence, as fact, while dismissing others as “fake news.”
Duke makes a concerted effort in this case to reject any Epstein reporting contrary to the official narrative provided by prison officials.
Also note how Duke claims that we are one of hundreds of articles flagged, while being the focus of his bogus fact check, to excuse his lack of journalistic standards by failing to contact us about our article before flagging BLP on Facebook.
Duke asks, “Is this an appeal?” in his response. Which is an interesting question as there are no official means to appeal Facebook’s decision to label our article.
This means that Alan Duke is the judge, jury and potential executioner when it comes to conservative news organizations as his “fact checks” can cause the removal of a page.
That is a scary thought.
We responded to Duke, explaining that we would not lower our editorial standards due to his threats. We asked him politely to remove his bogus fact check smearing our article unjustly as fake news.
I am not emailing you to appeal, only to point out there was nothing factually inaccurate about my article. Your subjective judgment about the individual who issued the report on social media is not germane for an article that is supposedly a “fact check.”
We are requesting for you to retract your false reporting, as there was a report referenced in my article and you claimed erroneously there was not. You also cannot point to anything specific that I wrote in my article that is inaccurate, as I requested in my first email to you.
Thank you for your quick response.
Duke did not respond to that email, seemingly lacking the intellectual integrity to admit his obvious errors.
While Duke may be tasked as a thought-control enforcer for Facebook, he does not appear to be doing a very good job at it if the comments on his own page are any indicator.
Big League Politics will continue to report about the conspiracy surrounding Epstein’s mysterious death, regardless of any desperate measures taken by Facebook and its minions to suppress the truth.