Tweet

David Roberts

14 Jan, 13 tweets, 2 min read

I just got online ... and ... Playbook did *what*?

If you want to spotlight & understand the very heart of US political media dysfunction, think about the nest of background assumptions required to imagine Chris Hayes & Ben Shapiro as equivalent.

One tries his best to tell the truth; one lies freely. One has a coherent, principled worldview that he tries to apply fairly; one glibly hops from faux principle to faux principle as it suits him. One has experience & skill in reporting; one has never done anything but Takes.

They are different species. They are involved in different undertakings, with different standards & aspirations. To cast them as equivalent -- "one from each side" -- requires ignoring all that & taking their partisan affinities as the ONLY variable that matters.

It is to explicitly say that media gatekeepers *will not* take honesty into account, or decency, or history, or consistency, or character.

This is it. This is what Politico is saying. "We don't care if you're honest or decent. Your 'side' alone qualifies you to be amplified."

Then they have the gall to turn around & say that ignoring honesty & character is a *virtue*, & that Dems who insist they matter are being "partisan" & living in a "bubble" -- that Dems must expose themselves to lies & sophistry out of some kind of intellectual hygiene.

Note, though, in the MSM & culture generally, this demand *never* goes the other way. No one asks or expects right-wing publications to allow Dems to take over & make their case. The notion is laughable.

No one expects Fox or Breitbart to turn themselves over to the people they relentlessly demonize & hurt so that they can pierce *their* bubble. No one asks or expects them to expose themselves to truth or decency.

The journos at Politico can tell themselves stories about how brave & open-minded they are (and oh, they will). But in the end, this is just another expression of America's founding credo: white people who are upset must be heard. Always. No matter what.

If they're upset based on lies & conspiracy theories, oh well. If they're upset because they care about white supremacy more than democracy, oh well. If they practice a level of glib sophistry that would get them laughed out of a dorm room, oh well. They're white & upset ...

... and thus civil society & all our institutions must warp & convulse to accommodate them, to hear them, to coddle them, to forget all the lies, to forgive all the crimes. Even if they are *fresh from an insurrection," dead bodies barely in the ground.

They're white & upset, so they must be heard. It's the most fundamental principle in American history. It's leading quite visibly to the crumbling of our democracy. And Politico -- because "mischief"? -- is reinforcing it. Fucking pathetic. </fin>

https://twitter.com/KateAronoff/status/1349764636288151554

lolsob addendum:

https://twitter.com/KateAronoff/status/1349764636288151554

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @drvolts

David Roberts

@drvolts

16 Jan

This article -- about Ted Cruz's aides & how shocked they are at his recent behavior -- prompts me to share a take I've had for a while, that's only gotten stronger in the last few years. (A short thread.) nymag.com/intelligencer/…

There's a kind of longstanding mythology in political journalism that the best work comes from getting "inside," getting sources that are close to the action. The idea is you're tapping into a kind of secret insider knowledge, the real deal, the stuff that matters.

It applies to punditry too -- supposedly you get the best insight from those on the inside, up close, who see the game & aren't fooled by the pageantry presented to hoi polloi.

Read 5 tweets

David Roberts

@drvolts

16 Jan

Just hilarious, these Trump enablers hanging on until the literal, mathematical last second & then leaving amidst a bunch of self-congratulation. Just the worst possible people, all of them.

Like this guy. 🙄 Shove your "disappointment" up your ass, you grubby apparatchik. wsj.com/articles/kudlo…

Brave, brave Sir Azar ran away ... with this resignation set to go into effect the day he would have lost his job anyway. Such stirring courage. cnn.com/2021/01/15/pol…

Read 4 tweets

David Roberts

@drvolts

14 Jan

The stance of "objective" media seems to be, if you listen to arguments on both sides of an issue & then decide one side is correct, you then become "partisan," which means you can't be trusted. Thus, the only way to truly be open-minded & trustworthy is to never take a position.

But of course, the people who have studied an issue most & understand it best are those *most likely to make a judgment on the merits*, so if you exclude them as "biased," you're left with glib, mealy-mouthed, "both sides have points" poseurs.

Read 7 tweets

David Roberts

@drvolts

13 Jan

I know this exercise is futile, but still: imagine if thousands of disaffected black voters gathered, stormed the US capitol, & came very close to kidnapping or killing lawmakers. Would anyone be saying, "they were just angry, they need to be heard, let's unify & move on"?

It's obvious to the point of absurdity, but still: if this were ANYONE except for rural & exurban white people ("real Americans"), this act of terror would have prompted an absolute national convulsion. Every participant would be in jail, every black person under suspicion.

If black members of Congress had egged it on, called them "my people," tweeted to them about the location of their colleagues ... they'd be gone already, not just booted from Congress but brought up on charges.

Read 4 tweets

David Roberts

@drvolts

13 Jan

Question: if the House impeaches but the Senate votes *against* removal from office (like last time), is Trump thenceforth banned from public office? When does that particular prohibition become active?

All right, my above-average readers have informed me that the ban from public office is *not* an automatic result of impeachment. It's a vote in the Senate, held separately from the vote to convict.

My one remaining question: can the vote to prohibit future public office happen *before* the vote to convict? Or if the vote to convict fails, can there still be a subsequent vote? Does the prohibition from public office *require* conviction?

Read 4 tweets

David Roberts

@drvolts

13 Jan

How can I watch this AOC thing? Don't make me figure out Instagram Live.

All right, I'm watching it, and everyone is right.

Good lord, watching AOC talk is like phasing into a different reality. She's smart, can speak in complete sentences extemporaneously, knows the details of policy, just radiates compassion. I want to live in this place.