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.
Whatever happened to Harris and Biden’s “strongest economy ever” that the media spent so much time hyping up in the lead up to the election?
I revisit the claims, and explain why they were off the mark about the economy all along, in my latest @AmerCompass.
Quick🧵thread🧵⤵️
It can be easy, in the wake of an election, to forget just how dominant a media narrative was.
One that’s already fading from view was how “great” the economy was, and why it would benefit Harris on Election Day. americancompass.org/its-still-the-…
As a refresher, check out this headline from @axios about the data.
@YahooFinance upgraded Biden’s economic grade to an A. That captures the press sentiment at the time quite well.
In recent days, the mainstream media has taken nakedly ridiculous claims about the tattoos of @PeteHegseth, Trump’s SecDef nominee, to spin up a story alleging he’s an extremist.
It’s an egregious example of politically driven “journalism.” I unpack why. ⤵️
The story really started with @AP, who ran an article claiming that two tattoos that @PeteHegseth has have ties to extremism, citing an extremely thin (and downright suspect) report.
They used that to label him a potential “insider threat” in their headline.
It wasn’t until 3 paragraphs in that a reader was told what that claim rested on: a tattoo of a Latin phrase. They’d go on to mention “concerns” about a cross tattoo as well.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.
I know it seems silly, but the media meltdown about Trump working at a McDonald’s is clarifying about why trust in the press has cratered.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit some of the most deranged takes. ⤵️
The press’s response to Trump deciding to troll Harris for her unsupported claims that she worked at McDonald’s by working at the chain himself sent the media into a tizzy.
Here’s @CNN, suddenly apologetic about a corporation in the political limelight.
My favorite take came from @nytimes, who appeared outraged that…Trump didn’t wear a hairnet.
The media is already trying to memory-hole the (first) attempted assassination of former President Trump.
I suspect many of you have felt it happening, but I walked through the details for The Spectator, and wanted to share some of them here.
Follow along ⤵️
First, I just want to level-set to make sure I’m not crazy.
Someone tried to kill the former POTUS, who, according to a variety of polls, is the odds-on favorite to return to that office. Tons of details didn’t make sense.
Seems like the press story of the year, right?
Well…
So far, the press doesn’t seem to think so.
It started as soon as the shots rang out. Do you remember how bad & unhelpful the headlines were?
I’ve got screenshots. @USATODAY @NBCNews (“popping noises”) @CNN (“injured in incident”) @latimes (“loud noises want through the crowd”)