An article on Yahoo News is causing quite a stir by revealing that Josh Uretsky, who was fired from his position as IT Director for the Sanders Campaign for improperly accessing data belonging to the Clinton Campaign, was recommended for that position by Andrew Brown, the Democratic National Committee’s National Director of Data. The revelation is credited to an anonymous source identified only as “ a top Sanders campaign adviser”.
“It’s not as if we conjured this guy Josh from thin air. This is an individual … who was recommended to us by the DNC and NGP VAN,” the adviser said.
This disclosure is fueling a great deal of speculation and argument regarding possible conspiracy and the suggestion that Uretsky might be a “mole” or a “plant”, all relying on the article for their foundation.
The problem with this is that the anonymous source makes neither of these allegations.
While it’s true that the article mentions conspiracy, it’s important to note that this was a characterization by the author of the article. Nowhere in the article is the anonymous source actually quoted as alleging a conspiracy or suggesting that Uretsky was a “plant”.
Still, given what happened with the breach, the adviser suggested Brown’s recommendation of Uretsky could be evidence of a conspiracy.
What form did this “suggestion” take? Here’s what the author presents by way of substantiation:
“I don’t know how you can more centrally connect this thing than those two entities,” the adviser explained. “Here we are being attacked by both of those entities when, in fact, they recommended this guy to the campaign.”
That’s it. Not a word about conspiracy. In fact, it sounds much more like a description of hypocrisy. Particularly so considering that elsewhere in the article the source is quoted as saying this:
“I just think it’s utter hypocrisy on their part,” said the adviser. “I mean here we are being attacked for the behavior of an individual, which we ultimately fired. We agree he acted improperly, but it’s just amazing to me that this … individual that actually caused this trouble in our campaign was recommended by these guys.”
This smacks of journalistic spin for the purpose of sensationalism.
What is evident is that the statements attributed to the source do not support the claim that the Sanders campaign is making any such accusation or alleging that Uretsky was a mole or a plant.
Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped some of the more rabid Sanders critics from raising a howl about the Sanders campaign engaging in “Conspiracy Theories”. Equally unfortunate is the fact that some over zealous Sanders supporters have played into this false narrative by accepting the article’s characterization at face value.
Here’s the bottom line. There’s plenty in the article to raise both eyebrows and legitimate questions about the DNC’s ethics and actions without falling in with what appears to be an instance of journalistic exaggeration. We should stick strictly to what the source is actually quoted as saying and not allow ourselves to be distracted into debates over things that were, apparently, never said.