With peace breaking out across the Middle East, I figured it would be a good time to revisit all of the people who told us confidently that @realDonaldTrump was leading us to disaster.
I think some apologies are in order. What say you, @SamanthaJPower?
You see, there were many, many Democratic politicians who assured us the world would be ending before our eyes, and that it would be @realDonaldTrump’s fault.
That includes presidential nominee @JoeBiden and his functional head of policy, @ewarren.
They weren’t alone. I wonder if we’ll be getting any follow up to this one from @SenSchumer?
Or perhaps @BernieSanders would like to follow up on this?
Maybe we can get some sort of comment from @repmarkpocan?
Their friends across the pond didn’t fair much better. You all surely remember @jeremycorbyn?
And, well, yeah. @khamenei_ir, not so much on this one. Credit for @Reuters for getting his perspective though.
They also managed to hear what Hezbollah had to say about American foreign policy.
The rest of the media wasn’t far behind. My two favorite come from the alchemic field of “media analysis” at @CNN.
Also, heaven forbid that third frame should happen!
You couldn’t have thought that @MaxBoot, who’s never seen a Middle Eastern war he isn’t interested in, wouldn’t find a way onto this list.
But did you expect the entire @washingtonpost editorial board to make it? Oh, you did?
I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll have to say it again. All of these people have gotten an enormous number of calls & predictions wrong, time and again, for generations.
Maybe it’s time we stopped to think about what that should mean for our trust in their future ideas?
Anyway, I don’t have anything to sell/subscribe to, but I do these threads often, so throw me a follow.
On the topic of the ME, please don’t forget that Christian persecution remains prevalent. Lots of good orgs are helping & need support, including: christiansatrisk.org/en/donate.html
Just dropping back by to remind you that no class of “experts” has shown themselves more bereft of expertise than those who handle foreign policy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
I’m not sure people realize just how egregious some of NPR’s “journalism” has been. Amid the debate about defunding the network, I wanted to walk down memory lane to revisit some of its worst coverage.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
First, perhaps the most egregious display of activist journalism: their response to the Hunter Biden laptop story of corruption involving a major party candidate on the eve of the election.
Not only did @NPR not cover it, they bragged about refusing to do so.
Insofar as @NPR did cover the Hunter Biden scandal, they actively tried to cover it up.
They applauded Facebook & Twitter strangling the story as part of a push against “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The story, of course, turned out to be far from invented.
If you missed Trump’s address to Congress last night, I wouldn’t rely on media stories to explain it.
Rather than report on a speech viewers found “inspiring,” the corporate press played PR for Democrats.
Wanna know why trust in the press is underwater? Look. ⤵️
A @CBSNews poll of viewers found “A large majority of viewers approve” of Trump’s message, overwhelmingly describing it as “inspiring,” rather than “divisive.”
The speech was certainly partisan - and viewers skewed right.
But the press’s own view appears to slant their takes.
What leads me to claim that? Well, just look at how @CBSNews decided to report on the speech.
They tweeted out that “there was a horribly tense feeling,” and it was “filled with drama.”
Why focus on how their reporter felt, rather than viewers?
Having worked on the Hill I get the ubiquity of Politico Pro and its cost.
But I think it takes an enormous suspension of disbelief to call it a conspiracy theory to look askance at the millions of dollars the Biden admin paid the paper that ran this hatchet job on his opponent.
Which, to be clear, is exactly what outlets like @CNN are doing.
@CNN This from @axios seems particularly unreasonable.
It isn’t a “fake theory” to say that Politico is “funded by the government.” It is, to the tune of $8 million. That isn’t in dispute.
Quick 🧵 revisiting corporate media claims on the Covid lab leak theory then (a “conspiracy theory,” “misinformation,” etc.) vs. now (“okay the CIA even admits it”).