AIM gives lying social media influencer a real-life reality check
August 10, 2023
Protecting the young from misinformation seems like such a sensible thing to do. But the problem comes in defining what is misinformation that the young should be protected from.
The current poster child for this is influencer Harry Sisson, whom we’ve mentioned before. That Sisson is unable to distinguish between carbon as in soot and carbon as in carbon dioxide is not proof of great intellect. That he then uses this to praise the Biden administration over EPA rules on how CO2 rules from power stations will clean Philadelphia air of soot from forest fires is misinformation.
Sisson stuck with his misinformation, leaving it to influence his 700,000 TikTok followers and 160,000 Twitter followers. So Accuracy in Media set out to hold him accountable. AIM sent a mobile billboard to his parents’ house (Sisson is 20 years old) calling him out for lying to his young followers.
Accuracy in Media also mobilized our network of activists to send hundreds of emails to Sisson and his management company, Palette Management.
The thing is, Sisson’s timeline seems to be nothing but praise for whatever the Biden administration seems to be doing, or even claims what it appears to be doing. A Supreme Court procedural is greeted as a massive win. “Joe Biden has been the BEST president on climate we’ve ever had” would be more than a little embarrassing if it were from a cheerleader concerning the quarterback. The associated claim that preventing uranium mining is an advance on protecting the environment from climate change is, at best, misinformation through lack of knowledge.
Sisson has said that he is not being paid by the Democratic National Committee. But the DNC has paid his management company, Palette Management, more than $200,000 this year alone. Biden was widely reported to strategically use influencers to target 18- to 29-year-old voters. Sisson himself was quoted in Axios on the matter.
AIM contacted his management company, Palette Management, for comment on his spreading misinformation and on whether he is receiving specific direction from the White House, but Palette has not responded.
So what we’re left with is that if a political party were to hire a not-very-good propagandist, this is what it would look like. Misinformation, disinformation, but politically convenient such. In the absence of contrary evidence, what else are we supposed to think here then?