Thread by @mymundanemind

Debates & Lenses (thread)

When @JoeBiden became the presumptive nominee, there was a huge debate about whether or not there would be... debates.

The premise: "@realDonaldTrump may be down in the polls *now* but once they have the debates, everyone will see how feeble Biden is."

The sides of the 'debate debate' were (and still are): "Since Trump will do so well in the debates, will they even have them?" Presented as a binary, 'yes or no' situation. I've seen many smart people weigh in on this premise: @RubinReport, @JeremyDBoreing, @benshapiro, etc.

No disrespect to the individuals bought into this premise, but I find it somewhat naive, especially based on what we've seen over the past several years. The legacy media has not operated in the binary "Don't cover Trump at all" vs. "Cover Trump in an honest and factual manner."

Consider how the following were covered:

Border crisis
Mass shooting(s)
Brett Kavanaugh
Russiagate!
Impeachment
Covid-19
etc.

Did the legacy media follow the binary "Do not cover this" vs. "Cover this honestly and unfiltered" ?

By now you understand my point: this is clearly not the binary they've been using. They skew and apply partisan lenses. Lenses = thumb on the scale.

Now with positive actions taken by Trump, they don't cover it. But a Presidential debate doesn't fall into the "optional" category

So here's the actual situation:

Many in media & big tech blame themselves for 2016 & have been seeking to rectify this ever since (see above)

They've done this by putting their thumb on the scale of truth by applying various lenses to situations.

The question isn't "will they or won't they?"

The proper question is "How will the media do what they've been doing, and put their thumb on scale when it comes to the debates? What lens will they apply?"

How can they assist Biden? Well, undermine the President's debate strength

Have you seen the uptick in headlines about "Fact-checking," "Trump's misleading comments," "Misinformation," etc.?

@CNN, @MSNBC & @NBCNews 'fact-checked' almost every night o the RNC. Lately, there's been an emphasis on "fact-checking" every presser & rally the President does.

This isn't an accident. Criminally under-reported, Joe Biden recently responded to @SpeakerPelosi urging he not "legitimize" the President by debating him (the 'low-ball'), to which Biden said that perhaps there should be (drumroll)... *live 'fact-checking'* (the 'desired price')

Do you understand now? This is the lens. Yes, the media would run cover Biden said he wouldn't debate. But many would see through it.

It's easier to just lay the groundwork of how much "misinformation" the President has been giving lately & seek to "balance" it with fact-checks.

How?

-Ask questions the President has answered before (Covid, economy, etc.)

-Since you know how he'll answer, the 'fact-check' is ready to go. The end.

Most people watch clips & see headlines from post-debates, so the legacy media can (and will) apply their lenses to those.

But like I said, they can't leave anything to chance. Penance must be paid for 2016. So they need to be ready on the spot for those who watch live. Hence, the live "fact-checking."

I've said for a while that @NPR is @CNN at lower volume with half the adjectives.

The other thing I've noticed is that @NBCNews is CNN with less exposure and fewer recognizable anchors (and all are emulating MSNBC)

Guess who's moderating the final debate? NBC's @kwelkernbc. (Check out her glowing DNC coverage for previews of whats to come)

Not. An. Accident.

"We're in the end game now." -Dr. Strange

The media knows this. They've been working for literally years to undo 2016. Thinking they'll ease up now is insane.

Just ask "Where on the scale must they apply the thumb?"

The debates. Track their trends & look for the thumb.

-end