On Monday, Tablet Magazine published an incredibly detailed exposé on Women's March which revealed the "pussy hat" activist group's anti-Semitic origins, as well as highly questionable finances reported two weeks ago by the Daily Beast - whose reporter had to virtually pry financial records from the organization in person.
According to the Tablet article, Women's March co-chairs Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez both made anti-Semitic remarks in 2016 at one of the organization's first meetings, and excluded "Jewish women" from its "unity principles" which call for the support of "Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women."
as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. -Tablet
The group has also "refused" to put any Jewish women on its board, according to former spokeswoman Mercy Morganfield, who added that "Most of the Jewish people resigned and left."
The group came under fire recently for Mallory's association with Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam.
Last month, Women's March co-chair Linda Sarsour issued an apology to Jews, stating that the group was "deeply sorry for the harm we have caused," and claiming to be committed to "fighting anti-Semitism."
For many, this was too little, too late. Tablet's story immediately began making the rounds after publication - and was tweeted by several journalists and pundits as it gained traction.
On Wednesday, many of those journalists received an identical, bizarre email from a public relations firm associated with Women's March, including The Federalist's Sean Davis. The email, from Inarú Meléndez of nonprofit social justice media firm Megaphone Strategies, claimed that there is a "list of fact checks" which had been submitted to Tablet "with corrections including screenshots that challenge the accuracy of the sources and the timeline included in the story," and included a list of demands to be met before they would share said corrections with the journalists.
In an e-mail sent to The Federalist’s Sean Davis and numerous others, Meléndez claims that “Tablet is in the process or making several corrections to the story,” and offered to share a list of these supposed “fact checks” — but only if Davis would agree to meet a set of demands. -The Federalist
LOL at this ham-fisted, amateur PR response to @tabletmag's expose on the anti-Semitism that forms the foundation of the Women's March. "Promise to delete your tweet about an article we don't like, and we might send you 'facts' you're not allowed to publish because journalism." pic.twitter.com/GMMD5bT1Cg— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 12, 2018
The same email was sent to several other reports who had similar reactions to Davis.
This is very unusual. I don't understand why they want me to go off the record if they have some sort of contradicting information. Heck, I didn't even write the piece. I didn't even tweet about it. I retweeted others who tweeted about it.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 12, 2018
This is the weirdest attempt at damage control I've ever seen. If you have information that supposedly clears your client then you should share it publicly instead of trying to go off-the-record with every reporter who tweeted (or even RTed) the story. It makes no sense.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 12, 2018
I too received this bizarre email. I didn’t even tweet it, I retweeted someone else’s tweet. pic.twitter.com/Whg0oNoVEW— Christmas Rou-dolph🦌🎄💜💜 (@crousselle) December 12, 2018
Uh what pic.twitter.com/fDvIu77Cgq— Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) December 12, 2018
As Tablet aptly asks in their headline: "Is the Women's March Melting Down?"
It even has— St. Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) December 12, 2018
BIOGRAPHIES for the people involved in the story.
BEAUTIFUL. 👨🍳👌 pic.twitter.com/hyr3160J5S
And this part here. This highlighted paragraph, while it's mostly just summing up things interspersed through the piece?— St. Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) December 12, 2018
IT HITS HOME THE OVERALL POINT THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE. And it lands! Beautiful. pic.twitter.com/JSHFhuiXrQ
I just finished reading.— St. Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) December 12, 2018
Go FOLLOW the authors of this piece: @jacob__siegel and @LeahMcSweeney
My overall impression of the article is that it excels at outlining the inner turmoil of the Women's March. So much so, you're left *confident* in having a better understanding. pic.twitter.com/KdTjscmSCz