,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is how @esquire and @jackholmes0 chose to frame my discussion last night on the MSD Commission report. The article failed to mention we were literally citing individual recommendations from the report (made by security and LEOs). They framed it as these are MY suggestions. 
They buried their lede, but here it is. To lay out whose model? The Commission? Which interviewed actual MSD teachers to incorporate their feedback as recommendations? That apparently wasn’t enough to merit a mention.
Did any of these so-called journos pushing this narrative even bother to reach out to the actual MSD Commission? Because I’ve yet to see a piece (Sun Sentinel and other fabulous local FL media excluded) that has. I did twice, my most recent yesterday:
The poorly-written Esquire piece I reference, wherein they intimate that the Commission’s report is mine/the NRA’s or something, is here if you want to see again why I distrust so much of what’s printed and have every justification to feel as I do: esquire.com/news-politics/…
Also, I applaud the Commission and think their recommendations will go a long way to securing the most precious among us.
/LastTweetInThread
/LastTweetInThread
Last thought: These people disagree with this report, but know it would look bad for them to argue with the security experts, police, teachers, parents who actually made the determinations, so they dishonestly try to attribute the whole thing to me to continue with their agenda.
I simply discussed the fabulous recommendations. I guess now those who discuss any policy from anywhere are responsible for having authored it, according to these new rules, right? (That’s rhetorical.)
