Mike CernovichVerified account

A caller says things heard on a radio show. A post from an unedited blogger on an open platform presents things read on that platform. I don't see the difference in terms of attribution. Both are independent voices carried on a publishing platform. Not the voice of the platform.

Was the article labeled as sponsored content? To the average reader, it looks like a real article. Deceptive at best. You seem really eager to defend HuffPo’s decision to post pro-Epstein content. Why?

In fact, why don't we ask @chuckdefeo if he was responsible for the content posted by members on http://Townhall.com  when he was the GM. I am pretty sure Chuck would say they represented their own opinions and NOT those of Townhall.

I don’t know who he is. You think you’re getting some “sick own” on me, but I wouldn’t defend townhall if they posted or allowed to be posted pro-Epstein stuff.

So you are saying that if Townhall saw someone post on its open platform something inappropriate that they should remove it? Isn't that what you said @HuffPost did? I don't understand your double standard.

I am saying that is a pro-Epstein article appeared under the townhall banner, I would expect an explanation from the outlet itself.

Would you attribute a something written in a post by a member of http://Townhall.com  (in its early format) to the publishers of Townhall? I wouldn't think so. It was an open platform where anyone could create a blog.

I don’t know what townhall was doing in 2017, but if they posted pro-Epstein stuff, I would expect a public apology and explanation.