About a week ago we reported on the fact that Twitter was afire with the rumor that Melania uses a body double and people submitted pictures that seemed to at least give some reason to consider it. We said in the title that it was a rumor and “you be the judge.” We made sure we added the point that we had no facts to back up the report, oh, about 472 times. Just because we’re a mid-sized website doesn’t mean we don’t take a lot of pride in publishing only provable facts. Those few times we make mistakes we correct them immediately and note we had it wrong.
About four days ago I got an email from a reporter at USA Today, wanting to discuss our article on “Melania having a body double.” Somewhat defensively I said “We didn’t do an article on Melania having a body double, we did an article on the fact the rumor was spreading over Twitter and said over and over that it was a rumor and we had no facts to back it up.”
I also mentioned that we’ve passed Newsguard’s test (for fake news websites or reliable news.)
She nicely said that she would go back and look at our article. After a day or so she wrote back saying they weren’t doing a story involving us at all – which is all we cared about. The only USA Today article I ever want about me is when I win the Nobel Prize for literature.
Today USA Today ran a definitive, and well-sourced, article [1] on the fact that Melania doesn’t have a body double – and they didn’t just cite the White House (which has a bit of a credibility problem, unlike us). Melania does have a secret service agent that does look a bit like her, which sort of makes sense from a protection perspective. It may also lead to some mistakes and speculation.
So, to keep this from being TLDR, we wanted to clear up that the “rumor” we published is now debunked. We do have to report on some rumors and we do a lot of speculation (and we say we’re “speculating”). We would love to be able to cover articles on subjects just like The New Yorker … it’s just tough for us to get enough readership on those to make the economics work. We have to write some fun stuff occasionally. But we will never intentionally mislead and will always note we’re giving our opinion, or we’re purely speculating.
And if we were ever going to purposefully publish a falsehood, we’d damn well make it worth being false, like Nicolle Wallace and I enjoying this fantastic weekend in Key West or something worth publishing.
Just so we’re all on the same page here. And, by the way, one of the reasons I always publish my contact information is to be accountable and for people to let us know if we’re mistaken. Plus, Nicolle could get ahold of me if needed.
Some on Twitter are not buying, but remember, Melania doesn’t use a body double!
I donβt typically get into this kind of this, but itβs the teeth for me. π€·π½ββοΈ pic.twitter.com/N6yYeDdgQx [2]
— G O L D I E. (@goldietaylor) October 25, 2020 [3]
Which Melania body double was most convincing? #FakeMelania [4] pic.twitter.com/oOCCRKsbdQ [5]
— Andrew Kimmel (@andrewkimmel) October 25, 2020 [6]
Has their been another sitting President in the Televisual age thatβs been quite so brazen as to use a body double of the First Lady on the campaign trail? I think not. Up their with my favourite conspiracy theories. The evidence is well… compelling.
#FakeMelania [4] pic.twitter.com/BEI0kJyV1m [7]— Jolyon Rubinstein (@JolyonRubs) October 25, 2020 [8]
You guys our industry isnβt dead. Congrats to Melaniaβs double for booking that recurring roleππ»ππ»ππ» pic.twitter.com/OIbmSpAmQg [9]
— Mark MacKillop (@mark_mackillop) October 25, 2020 [10]
who the fuck is that pic.twitter.com/BqlgfjnuYM [11]
— BenDavid Grabinski+ (@bdgrabinski) October 30, 2020 [12]
Either Melania is sicker than we knew so a body double. Or this is a very bad 'shop. M's nose is a bit longer and the whole lip line is different. Those years pf speed drawing classes came in handy here! pic.twitter.com/tCHL7owZC2 [13]
— πππ‘ππ£ππ₯ ππ βππ£π πππ (@SpiritOnParole) October 25, 2020 [14]
****
Peace, y’all
Jason
[email protected] and on Twitter @MiciakZoom