The Kavanaugh hearing was a clarifying moment for countless conservatives because it revealed the depths to which the other side will sink in order to get power.
I don’t think most conservatives need a reminder, but in case you‘ve forgotten...
🧵Thread🧵
We saw how eager the media, Dems, and others were to push baseless claims to destroy someone without evidence.
They’ll take unsubstantiated claims and level accusations against you as if they were already true. Elected officials, members of the media, thought leaders, and beyond would attack you from all sides.
Even the future Democratic Vice Presidential nominee would be involved. @KamalaHarris
These attacks and general skepticism will only apply to you, of course. Your accuser will get only fawning coverage. Here’s @nytimes and one of their opinion columnists, @michelleinbklyn.
They’ll amplify conspiracy theories and baseless accusations against you without making any pretense of vetting them first.
Rather than have a shred of incredulity when the most ridiculous of allegations, pushed by an outright fraud, come to light, they buy the claims hook, line, and sinker.
Hard to overstate how pervasive this phenomena was.
Here’s @CNBC’s White House reporter @christinawilkie running with the entire allegation.
I needed an entire tweet to highlight @SethAbramson, who said of @MichaelAvenatti and his invented claims “the man plans to run for president; my gut tells me he doesn’t go public with these allegations unless he’s got some pretty compelling witnesses and evidence”
Even their fact checkers will push unverified allegations that would eventually be referred for prosecution. Here’s @CNN’s @ddale8.
The truth of it doesn’t matter at all. If it bleeds, it ledes.
They’ll publicly crucify you for the crimes of others, or the crimes of a system. Here’s @voxdotcom
And if you dare protest - if you push back with even a hint of frustration as you see your good name dragged through the mud - you’ll have that used as a mark against you, too. Here we have @JohnBrennan, @MSNBC, @MalcolmNance and @lithub.
Really hard to overstate how frequent this line of criticism was.
I wonder if @NAACP, @NickKristof, @JoyAnnReid or @peterdaou could envision why someone would be angry for having their character picked apart on baseless claims?
And then they’ll demand you complete yet another background check - after you’ve passed SIX of them - if you want any hope of convincing them.
Are these the people and institutions you think you can trust and count on? Are these the parties you think you can negotiate with on a new SCOTUS Justice? Are these your good faith partners?
Because I, for one, have had it. I’m not interested in another round of this bad faith insanity.
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”).