,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Part of it is that after a 3-year-long story, you'll have tens of thousands of examples to cherry-pick from. So the cherry-picks ought to be really good! (Non-opinion journalists at very high-prestige outlets repeatedly fucking up in very big ways that are central to the story.)
I also don't get why people write these maximalist polemics when they could be more compelling by being more focused. Wanna critique what's happened to left-leaning cable news? Russiagate is *great* for that. The overuse of anon sources? Russiagate gives you a lot to work with.
Ironically, the tendency by these critics to tie together a number of fairly discrete news events and coverage decisions under the rubric of the Big Hoax or the Catastrophic Media Fuck-Up reflects the same sort of paranoid style that the worst Russiagate pundits were guilty of.
