In contrast, Adam Shriver, a graduate student in Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology at the University and the leader of the St. Louis Activist Hub, believes that Loesch’s credibility as an analyst is questionable at best.Just to elaborate on the Van Jones point, here's a video where Loesch claims that Jones was paid $20,000 to speak at Washington University:
“Hiring Dana Loesch as an election analyst severely damages the credibility of CNN as a news organization, not because of the fact that she’s extremely conservative, but rather because she is a proponent of the Andrew Breitbart approach to journalism which is fundamentally dishonest when it comes to the gathering and presentation of information,” Shriver wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.
Shriver cited Loesch’s recent comments regarding Bristol Palin’s guest speaker controversy last week as an example of her dishonesty.
“Loesch was completely dishonest about the Bristol Palin controversy at Wash. U.…she claimed that Wash. U. paid Van Jones $20,000 to speak at the school,” Shriver said. “Actually, Van Jones usually speaks for $20,000, but agreed to speak at Wash. U. for only $5,000. Green Action applied for a small amount more for a panel, but they were turned down.”
Shriver concluded by addressing what, he believes, made this hiring controversial.
“There are plenty of honest people out there who can effectively communicate a conservative message,” he said. “I see no reason why CNN should hire a person with Loesch’s track record of pushing blatant misinformation.”
Van Jones was actually only paid $5,000 although he usually speaks for $20,000, and this fact is a matter of public record. I contacted one of the student organizers of the event who verified that the final amount was only $5,000.
So Loesch was making false claims. But not only that, she was knowingly making false claims, since she herself had tweeted that Jones was paid $5,000 from Washington University back on January 30:
Basically, as long as CNN has her on as a guest, they will be promoting not just things with an extreme conservative slant, and not just out-of-context misinterpretations, but nonstop, blatantly false claims like the one above. Loesch knew the truth, but she changed it to make her story more dramatic.