Connect with us
Barrett News Media Summit 2024

BNM Writers

Dinesh D’Souza Fires Back Over 2000 Mules

D’Souza responded to the point made by Shapiro, stating that “we do not see in the film the same guy making multiple trips to a dropbox.”

Rick Schultz

Published

on

A photo of Dinesh D'Souza

2000 is a lot of mules. And yet that number pales in comparison to the number of reactions, critiques, and commendations those 2000 mules have attracted over the past few weeks.

This month has seen the viral explosion of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest documentary, 2000 Mules, which chronicles the Democratic party’s alleged secret ballot-harvesting tactics during the 2020 election.

In episode 330 of his YouTube podcast over the weekend, the outspoken author and filmmaker directly answered some of the “fact-checking” that has been aimed at his latest blockbuster, where he claims to have uncovered the dark and allegedly illegal tactics that many think led to the election of America’s current President.

D’Souza says his film has been very effective in “reshaping the way people think about our elections. Changing the debate about what happened in the 2020 election, all of that.”

PolitiFact, the AP, and Washington Post stand out as a few of the organizations that have officially “fact-checked” D’Souza’s film, but he began his podcast responding to fellow conservative Ben Shapiro. Shapiro, a staunch conservative influencer, if not a card-carrying member of the populist wing, had some pointed questions about the film’s validity.

D’Souza responded to the point made by Shapiro, stating that “we do not see in the film the same guy making multiple trips to a dropbox. In other words, making more than one dropbox visit. The same guy, not different people doing it. And we know you have video tracking showing it, but we don’t see it.”

D’Souza responded, “This is true. Let me tell you why it’s true. It’s true because most of these dropboxes, sadly, have no surveillance footage. They just don’t. And so, even though the geotracking, by the way, the geotracking is more reliable than video footage for the same reason that DNA is more reliable than an eyewitness. DNA show you left a hair or a drop of blood at a crime scene, and it’s your DNA; you were there.” 

D’Souza continued, saying, “If geotracking showed a mule going from one dropbox to another, to another, to another, let’s say between 2 am and 3 am in the morning, and it turns out that on the fifth dropbox there happens to be surveillance footage, and you know that this guy was there at a specific moment and day in time, and you look on the video at that day, and that time and there he is – boom, you’ve proven your case. You’ve established it clearly. The geotracking supports the video; the video confirms the geotracking. So, it seems what Ben Shapiro is kind of asking for is unreasonable.”

D’Souza went on to say that he also posted to his social media photos of who he says is the same individual in question, wearing different outfits, on two separate occasions “stuffing ballots, multiple ballots in his hand, in dropboxes.” He says this is evidence of at least one case of the same person stuffing ballots into multiple ballot boxes.

“Frankly, if the states did what they said, if they followed the election rules, if they had video everywhere, we would have the mules at every drop box,” he said. “We would have them at every dropbox they went to.” He added that some states didn’t have video, others didn’t have enough, and still, other states had turned off their video.

He finished his point by quoting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, in a 2018 case dealing with geotracking and privacy issues. In that ruling, Roberts said, “When the government tracks the location of a cell phone, it achieves near-perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the cell phone’s user.”

2000 Mules, the most successful political documentary in a decade, goes deep into alleged voter fraud and ballot stuffing operations by Democrats, which many feel changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The film has already crossed $10M in gross revenue, which is astounding for a political documentary.

D’Souza said there is a planned public exchange, perhaps this week, between himself and Washington Post national correspondent Philip Bump, who has “in the last few months, written about seven articles focusing on the issue of vote harvesting, ballot trafficking.” 

D’Souza’s other blockbuster documentaries include Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? The Plot Against the President, among others.

Many of his earlier films have been launched with a more traditional theatrical release. Not so for 2000 Mules, which included a limited theatrical release and distribution through SalemNow.com and at 2000Mules.locals.com 

The mules will undoubtedly continue to rally the metaphorical troops and, simultaneously, ruffle plenty of feathers.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

News is the Only Thing Missing From Election Coverage

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected?

Published

on

A photo featuring I voted stickers

The first thought I had when I heard NBC had hired Ronna McDaniel as a commentator for $300,000 a year was to wonder how many actual journalists they could have hired for that money. Then, I recalled that NBC had laid off dozens of news staffers just a few months ago. Then, I remembered that I had just recently written a column decrying news organizations throwing pretty much anybody on the air as a “pundit” and this….

This was worse. It’s one thing to grab some rando who happened to be a minor functionary for the Executive Branch. It’s another to hire someone whose job was to promote election denialism and pretend that her opinion is something valuable for viewers. And, yes, it’s just as ridiculous when news organizations hire former presidential press secretaries (that’s you, Jen Psaki and Sean Spicer), their very jobs were to spin everything in their bosses’ favor and now you’re going to pay them big salaries for, um, what? Because they “have a name” or you’re afraid someone else will snap them up? Why them?

The McDaniel deal lasted five days, one completely unilluminating interview, and one unexpected Chuck Todd spine-growing outburst, so it’ll all blow over soon enough. The problem is, though, the part about having fired several news staffers, and what it means in an election year on both the national and local levels. If you have the money to hire an alleged pundit – any alleged pundit – you have the money to hire reporters, and I don’t mean anchors or opinion show hosts.

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected? Who’s probing Project 2025 and why isn’t it front-page, first-segment news? Who’s pressing the Biden administration on Gaza? Is anyone reporting on the candidates’ record on climate change?

Beyond prescription drug prices, is anyone digging into the broken healthcare system and demanding answers from the candidates about what they’ll do to fix it (and not letting Trump get away with “I’ll have a better plan, a beautiful plan” without a single specific detail, like they did in 2016)? Why didn’t anyone focus on, for example, the GOP candidate for governor of North Carolina and his incendiary past comments well before the primary?

Pundits are not going to do the legwork on the issues; they’ll just talk about swing states while John King and Steve Kornacki point at their touchscreen maps. We need reporting on the things that matter (and can affect that horse race, even if most people have made up their minds). It shouldn’t just be Pro Publica and scattered independent journalists doing the dirty work.

Honestly, I don’t want to hear the complaints about the quality of the candidates or how this is a rerun or any of that. (We’ll leave that to The New York Times.) We are a horribly underinformed electorate and we got the horse race we deserve. It might just be idealists like me who think that, just maybe, the news media can play a role in educating the public and bursting the bubbles and echo chambers. This country has survived and prospered for a few centuries with the press shining a light on injustice and corruption.

Now, when we need that most, they’re more concerned with what they think will bring them ratings and money (although someone will have to explain to me who thought having Ronna McDaniel as a paid commentator would draw a single viewer to NBC).

Here’s a thought: Don’t lay off reporters, especially in an election year.  Assign them to dig deep on issues that matter to the voters.

Let the pundits talk about that.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

8 Ways to Take Your Commercials From Drab to Fab

Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials.

Avatar photo

Published

on

A photo of a sign with the letters AD on it

Another reason to read this column, I often add an Easter egg. We are in the advertising business. Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials. Frequently, clients write these ads. You can excuse it if the spots suck. But when the commercials are written by Account Executives or the production department at the station, it is kind of unforgivable.

I am going to share the most meaningless phrases in commercials.

Locally Owned and Operated

Customers do not care. If customers cared about a business being locally owned and operated, Walmart would not exist. People want service, selection, and value. They do not want to get soaked. When you purchase something, are you willing to pay 20% for a local company? If you say yes, you are wrong. People want a deal.

The Phone Number

Doing 70 down the 405, John slammed on the brakes to write down the phone number for an amazing HVAC Company. That is not how it works people. HVAC companies rarely have or should have regular customers.

Normally, your AC is out. You call the HVAC Company that you are familiar with. Radio advertising allows people to have “TOMA”: Top of Mind Awareness. There are stats that show when a company is advertising on your radio station, their website shows an increase in traffic. When you needed a service for your home, you hit Google and choose the company that you’ve heard of. It’s that simple. I actually heard a commercial asking listeners to add a businesses phone number to their contact list. That is a moronic use of advertising real estate.

Street Addresses

“Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is located at 106 East Governors Drive in Peoria.” 

The people listening cannot process that detail. You could say “Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is on Governors Drive just off 10th in Peoria.” That is almost digestible. That creates a picture of where it is.

Trust me, people interested in prime rib will Google you and load the address in their navigation system. Spend that precious spot time selling the experience of the restaurant.

Always Using the Company Owner/Founder in Commercials

Sometimes, it is amazing when business owners are their spokesperson. They have passion and are natural salespeople. Some business owners are terrible at speaking about their product.

When you have a business owner who is a natural promoter, they can drag listeners into their business. I once worked with a family who owned a couple of hardware stores. They spoke about the benefits of visiting their stores. It was heartfelt and real. They promised that their employees can help solve any problem in your home. If you went to that store and had a simple or complex problem, the employees helped you out.

I once worked with a man who owned a really nice flooring company.  For whatever reason, he thought that he was funny. He had spots written by him, his wife, or a kid. The ads were dreadful. They were not funny at all. Account Executives need to talk these clients out of doing commercials like this. Nothing says wacky hijinks like flooring.

Overuse of Numbers

“We have grapes at 99 cents a pound, Chuck steak at $1.99, two-for-one zucchini.”

Trust me, no one driving in city traffic can keep track of that. “The 2025 Chevy Chevette is back with 45-mpg efficiency and amazing 18-inch tires. Prices start at $19,999…  The New Chevy Silverado starts at $32,999.”

It gets really confusing fast.

WWW.

Yes, I hear commercials saying check us on the internet at “W-W-W dot business name here dot com.”

WWW is assumed and not needed anymore unless you are running a Commadore-64 with the latest floppy disc technology.

Yellow Pages Ad

“Check out our new ad in the Yellow Pages!”

OMG, no one reads those damn things anymore. Most people born after 1960 just toss those suckers in the trash. There was a time when the Yellow Pages were the largest revenue generator in advertising. Yes, a book of ads. Like Facebook, without your buddy’s political, vacation, or food posts. It was just ads. Zero content.

I had stuffed salmon tonight that I engineered myself. I would make Sydney Sweeney quite the trophy husband. Set us up. Hey, I am single. It was not that long ago that you would hear a radio ad that promoted a coupon in the Sunday paper.

Well, that copy should be deader than a doornail.

Amateur Theater

A husband and wife discussing their lawn and how she heard about Telly’s Lawn Service from her friend Stacy. 

Those commercials are obviously contrived and not interesting at all. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Open every commercial must have an attention-grabbing opener. “Totally Jammed…  The floor covered with the guest towels. Fearing the horrific consequences of another flush…  I did the right thing. I called ABC Plumbing. Quick service, a great price, and peace of mind.”

The next time that the plunger is failing to get the desired results, the listener of that commercial will identify with the very realist scenario.

We are in the advertising business. Use radio as it was meant.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

The Lost Art of Using Sound as a Springboard

Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Published

on

A photo of Jon Stewart hosting The Daily Show
(Photo: Comedy Central)

Jon Stewart was the first guy to do it — take a politician’s words from the news of the day or week. Search his or her entire past and find a sound byte saying the exact opposite.

It became an art form – and a great way to keep people accountable.

Most radio operations don’t have the resources necessary to consistently do something like that, but truth be told, that kind of journalism isn’t really the point of this week’s column.

It’s an example of the simple power of sound. We need to use it more within our shows. Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable, and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Speaking from experience, not doing it is lazy.

Doing it takes minimal effort and helps conversations tremendously – especially when it’s in real-time. I know. I’ve been there – missing opportunity after opportunity because I didn’t think of it, ask for help or just do it myself.

Put simply, good sound is a better springboard to a question than just a question.

Just the other day, I realized how well it works and how little I’ve been doing it.

Here’s what happened.

We have one particularly heated congressional race in our state. The Republican candidate is running for a second time after narrowly losing in 2022 in an election where Connecticut’s gubernatorial candidate from the same party got smoked, and the Republican presidential candidate lost the state as well.

This time around, there’s a struggling Democratic President with real doubts about the economy and the country’s standing in the world.

Put simply, the Democratic congressional incumbent has a massive task ahead to get re-elected.

On my show, I try to be consistently independent and be a place for both parties to appear with the expectation that the conversations will be fair and honest.

The Republican candidate came on the show earlier this month, and we went through a number of issues. Connecticut is a relatively strong Democratic stronghold, where the party controls the legislature, the Governor’s Mansion, and the entire congressional delegation.

Having said that, the largest voting block is unaffiliated, so appealing to independents is crucial for either side to win. I asked the Republican candidate twice about whether he will support Donald Trump, and both times, he equivocated. I asked the follow-up, we were on the record, so I moved on.

The following week, his opponent, the Democratic incumbent, was scheduled to appear on the show. Before her arrival, I realized the Trump Q&A should probably be replayed for her. Duh.

My producer found it, clipped it, and had it at the ready. I felt that I should have realized it sooner and not put some added strain on my partner’s morning routine. He was fine, but it definitely added unnecessary work within the show.

Lesson learned.

The sound byte worked well. I played it. She responded. We moved the story forward, and it was compelling – as you might imagine, the topic of Trump vs. Biden is pretty compelling these days.

By no means did it create a “wow” moment. That would be a little much. But it did make the show better, using the opponent’s own voice as opposed to my paraphrasing something. That lends credibility, not only to the topic but also to the show. He gave this important answer on our show, and she gave her response … on our show.

My final thought on this is that we (I) need to look for more places to utilize sound as a springboard to conversations, as opposed to simply raising the topic and discussing it. Maybe you’re already good at it and do it all the time, but this past week, I realized I need to push myself to do it more.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.