Last night we learned, unequivocally, that the FBI acted deliberately to undermine @realDonaldTrump.
Think we’ll get any follow up from all the outlets who made the face of bad FBI behavior, Peter Strzok (@petestrzok), into some kind of hero?
The worst offender had to be @MSNBC. It would be an understatement to say that they made a martyr out of him.
They also helped push his new book, and covered for a theory (that has aged poorly) that people were quitting the FBI because of “unacceptable politicization.”
It won’t surprise you that @maddow was leading the charge on this one.
She made Strzok out to be a wrongly defamed hero who had done nothing but try to defend the country.
And here’s @MaddowBlog parroting these terrible talking points back.
I’m not sure it’s still fair to say that “Republicans may not realize what they’re in for as they try to make a public stunt of vilifying Peter Strzok.”
MSNBC wasn’t alone, of course. Here’s @nytimes pushing Strzok’s new book.
I feel like reporting from @seanmdav and @MZHemingway at @FDRLST shines a lot more light on “the bureau’s internal debate over investigating President Trump.”
I’m not sure I would agree that Strzok has gotten “complete vindication” in all this. Nor do I think I would have had him on to hawk his book if I were them.
And they also got their big names involved. These takes from @brianstelter have aged...imperfectly.
Still thinking it’s a different reality to suggest that Strzok was part of “the single biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in American history,” Brian?
A similar perspective here from @oliverdarcy. I think by now it should be obvious why Strzok/Page was a massive story in ‘right-wing’ media.
My question now is: why has “Russian collusion” ceased to be a story in left-wing media?
There were a lot of outlets that pushed this one and space is getting tight. Here’s @NPR and @ABC.
@washingtonpost reminds us yet again that “news analysis” should not be an activity that any reputable news outlet engages in.
Perhaps the outlet that comes out of all of this looking the worst is @BuzzFeedNews.
This one is a hall of fame take.
But I’ll admit that @Newsweek is right behind them.
And it wasn’t just the media that got this wrong.
Here’s everyone’s favorite member of Congress, @RepSwalwell, brought to you courtesy of @MSNBC.
In retrospect, I think @tedlieu may have been the most irresponsible member of Congress not named Schiff throughout this whole process.
I don’t think @realDonaldTrump or anyone else is going to be rushing to thank Strzok any time soon.
@RepBonnie definitely gets the award for weirdest response for suggesting FBI agents should be “kissing” Strzok (that was actually part of the problem).
Oh, and @RepCohen suggested Strzok should have a Purple Heart. (He’s since walked that suggestion back).
Of course, the galaxy brain blue checks also got involved.
I know I’ve said this before, but this first one might truly be the worst @JRubinBlogger take of all time.
Also a long list, but I think this may be my favorite @SethAbramson take of all time.
From behind the block, @deanobeidallah has some perspectives that haven’t aged well.
Of course, the NeverTrump gang got involved on this one. Also a second entry from behind the block, here’s twitter’s worst prognosticator, @therickwilson.
Hard for me to imagine that this is “not a scandal.”
What this boils down to, in my eyes, is that the Dems & the media have made it an art form lately to take a shady character - Strzok, Avenatti, Michael Cohen, etc. - and make them a hero because they oppose Trump.
The reason I take screenshots is that I'm always paranoid that an outlet or journalist will scrap the evidence of a bad take. Maybe I should be giving folks more credit for standing by their inaccuracies.
Every so often I check back in on this, perhaps my all-time favorite headline from @NPR, only to see that it still exists in its original form, from April 2020.
I launched a newsletter, called Holden Court, about the media, what they get wrong & why it matters. The goal is to reach beyond what my 🧵s have on Twitter & to build a better recent history of media & media criticism.
You can sign up at the link in my bio. More ⤵️
At that link you can read my launch piece and get a better idea of what it is that I’m trying to do.
The piece also walks through a recent example of bad media coverage that I worry we’re already forgetting about: the start of Covid.
My general premise for the newsletter is that media criticism could be a lot better; more driven by what the media actually does and says and more set in recent context, rather than an impressionistic sense that the media is hopelessly off-track.
I’m launching something new, so naturally I figured the best explainer was a 🧵thread🧵.
Introducing Holden Court, my Substack about the media, what it gets wrong, and why it matters.
You probably know the drill, but more details & links to sign up in the tweets below. ⤵️
Holden Court aims to unpack media failures, particularly when the media misses in unison on important political topics. But I’ll also have one-off content, Q&A opportunities, a mailbag and maybe virtual (or even in person) happy hours, too.
That doesn’t mean the threads are going away. But the amount of context and nuance I can capture in a thread is limited. So the Substack will (hopefully) provide that more robust analysis, aiming ultimately at *why* the media misses the way that it does.
“15 days to slow the spread” kicked off four years ago Saturday, sending the media into perhaps its most deranged cycle of my lifetime.
I dove back into some of the worst lockdown media coverage from those early days.
Buckle in, this one’s long. ⤵️
The real worst of the coverage was when states started reopening. The media outrage was palpable. Republicans wanted people to die, we were told.
Remember @TheAtlantic’s “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice”? You may’ve forgotten how wild the text of it was. I did.
But that wasn’t a one off sentiment. The belief four years ago among the media was that allowing people to leave their homes was tantamount to killing people.
@washingtonpost called it a “deadly error” — not in an opinion piece, mind you, but in a “health” news headline.
Another media conspiracy, this time that Trump attacked a Secret Service agent on Jan 6, imploded yesterday.
Remember when the media—in unison—reported the “bombshell” allegations as fact?
I do. And I’ve got screenshots.⤵️
You’re familiar with the story I suspect but just in case: when former aid Cassidy Hutchinson testified Trump had “lunged” for a secret service steering wheel on Jan. 6, the media rushed to print the salacious (& false) claims as true.
Here’s @NBCNews @CNN @ABC @washingtonpost
Trump was allegedly going to drive himself to the Capitol to take part in the riot.
That’s what @CBSNews @Independent @NPR @NewsHour said.
The new change is stark. I went thru @nytimes digital archive.
Since Biden said the border wasn’t secure in late Jan, “border crisis” appeared in 26 NYT stories, even as crossings declined.
When crossings peaked in Nov & Dec, but there was no one but Biden to blame?
5 mentions
So what changed? Well, Biden empowered the press by saying the border wasn’t secure in late Jan. Then Republicans voted against a “bipartisan” border deal.
After that, the media were off to the races: yes, there was a border crisis, and it was the GOP’s fault. Here’s @CNN.