,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1. I think Mayer's Al Franken article is best understood as a series of arguments by implication.
The first is that, as long as the left dominates the staffing of mainstream media, destruction by accusation works *better* on the basis of brazen, partisan, double standards.
The first is that, as long as the left dominates the staffing of mainstream media, destruction by accusation works *better* on the basis of brazen, partisan, double standards.
2. The knowledge that anyone on *their* side can be destroyed by any accusation (no matter how poorly sourced) is combined with the knowledge that *your* side is safe because the media judges will protect you.
3. Her real complaint is that the Left gave this protection away by turning on Franken
It didn't matter that Franken was guilty or that he was replaced by another Democrat and their was no political harm done.
It didn't matter that Franken was guilty or that he was replaced by another Democrat and their was no political harm done.
4. Turning on Franken established that Democrats, at least somewhat and some of the time, had to play by the same rules as Republicans.
This was giving away an advantage.
This was giving away an advantage.
5. For Mayer, the power came not in the truth of the accusation, but in the unappealable power of the show trial. The media commissars save you or break you according to their interests
By conceding any power to truth, Franken's liberal critics undermined this power.
By conceding any power to truth, Franken's liberal critics undermined this power.
6. Mayer's liberal critics are pointing out that the media power of liberals is not quite absolute, and that, in extreme cases, minimal concessions to the ideal of procedural fairness must occasionally be made in order for media liberals to maintain some credibility.
