The Inside the Beltway Bubble Needs to Give Credit to Those Outside the Beltway

The Right loves to talk about the importance of flyover country, but our elites are just as biased in favor of voices/writers from the Acela Corridor (New York City-Washington, D.C.) as the Left is.

For those of you who follow me on Twitter, you likely have noticed I often use the words “echoing,” “echoes,” and “echoed” in retweets when referring to articles by others that say what I previously said. Those words are my polite way of noting the similarity between what I said and what the writer later said because usually I cannot prove that the writer saw what I wrote and “repurposed” it for his own use. If you click on the above hyperlinks, you will find dozens and dozens of examples. I cannot tell you the number of times I've submitted an op-ed to a publication (including the Wall Street Journal), been rejected, and later see a very similar piece in that publication by a better known writer in the next seven-to-ten days. It would be coincidental if it didn’t happen as often as it has. It is frustrating because my livelihood comes from the ideas I generate and write about for this column and Opportunity Ohio. The Right loves to talk about the importance of flyover country, but our elites are just as biased in favor of voices/writers from the Acela Corridor (New York City to Washington, D.C.) as the Left is. 

This trend led me to put in my Twitter biography that “I say/write it 1st, others get credit.” My friends have even flagged examples for me in the past when they've read something that is eerily similar to something of mine they had previously read. As Dwight Schrute famously said on an episode of The Office, “Identity theft is real, Jim."

Before I lay out the case against The Federalist, let me state unequivocally that I am an enormous fan of the publication, most of its writers, and Mollie Hemingway, its Editor-in-Chief (I also really like her husband, Mark Hemingway). I’ve previously published pieces with The Federalist and have credited Hemingway’s book, “Rigged,” for laying out the most compelling case on how the 2016 and 2020 elections were rigged by the Left. Hemingway’s nightly role on Fox News does more to move the needle for the Right than most any other person.

With that said, I am disappointed that The Federalist published an article that used my idea with any mention of my earlier column.

First, on August 14, 2024, I published my column, “A Trump Administration FEC Must Adopt a Process That Highlights the In-Kind Political Contributions the Media Makes to the Left.” To my knowledge, I am the first person to propose this type of in-kind contribution idea re media bias that helps Democrats win elections. When I tweeted about the article, I included Mark’s Twitter account, as well as Miranda Devine’s and Ari Fletcher’s Twitter accounts. Over the next few weeks, I flagged the article to Hemingway (three times), Senator Tom Cotton, Elon Musk, Richard Grenell, Ned Ryun, Jason Beale, Fool Nelson (prolific tweeter on Right), and MazeMoore (same) after they raised the issue of media bias.

Next, on September 11, 2024, The Federalist published an article, “ABC Should Be Prosecuted For Illegal Contributions To Harris In ‘Debate’,” by Beth Brelje. The article didn’t mention my article—though it did dance around it, which was fine as it really focused on the illegality issue. After reading Brelje’s article, I retweeted it and pointed both Brelje and Hemingway to my August 14th article re treating media bias as an in-kind contribution to the Democrats. Brelje “liked” my tweet and began following me (both Hemingways have followed me for quite some time).

Finally, on September 13, 2024, Brelje wrote a follow-up article, “ABC News Refuses To Say If It Will Disclose Its Debate As In-Kind Contribution To Kamala Harris,” which The Federalist and Hemingway tweeted out. The article didn’t mention my earlier article at all or give it any attribution. After Hemingway tweeted about the article on September 15, 2024, I retweeted her tweet stating: “Article should have included attribution to my original piece out over month ago @mhemingway,” which failed to elicit a response or correction. The Federalist article got posted on a couple of other sites like The Bongino Report, thereby spreading its message.

Now, it is true Brelje mentioned that the Federal Election Commission theoretically could treat media bias as an in-kind contribution in her September 11 article, but the angle wasn’t the thrust of the piece and it still followed by nearly a month my August 14th column. From my perspective, it appears that she read my August 14 article after liking my tweet so wrote the follow-up piece two days later to further delve into the in-kind contribution angle. Maybe you don’t think that warrants any reference to my piece, but I’d politely suggest that she should have. My piece clearly seems to have made her realize the in-kind contribution angle was a stronger argument to make against the media than the illegal contribution angle, which has been made and rejected many times before. At a minimum, she should have simply noted my earlier piece and idea somewhere in the body of her article. Frankly, it would have made her article even stronger, as my idea goes beyond an interpretative FEC issue and pushes for a required process to identify and account for media bias that is functionally an in-kind contribution to Democrats. 

At any rate, read all three articles yourself and let me know what you think in the comments to this article. I’m genuinely curious if you think I am correct or simply being too sensitive, which I admit is possible given how often “I’ve said/written it 1st, as others got the credit.” I rarely let the issue get to me, but, every now and again, I simply can’t take the failure of the Inside the Beltway world to ever take note of what gets said and written Outside the Beltway. The last time was roughly a year ago involving an insider getting credit for a voting dynamic I had first highlighted two years earlier.