Thread by @Wilson__Valdez

We've reached the stage of the criticism cycle that I refer to as the 'Sarah Jones/Haberman gambit'-after being deluged with comments about their poor journalistic behavior, they nut-pick out some random. anon email & they try to pivot the story about how theyre the real victim.

https://twitter.com/stevenjay/status/1364973691323432960

I call it that bc Sarah Jones would write some insanely bad, obsessive piece (usually about the Clintons) and would be deluged with loads of legit. criticisms about it. And would of course ignore them all & then post some random anon email she got and be like, "wow, this is/

the type of abuse you get for merely daring to question the Dems/Clinton. And people say Bernie fans have an abuse problem." Haberman did the same thing. Ken Vogel does it too.

Then all of their journo friends (in a clearly not coordinated play to drown out the criticism) all post about how 'X is the best journo ever etc etc & try to make the story about the 'harassment' (which again consists one anon email). The journalist cliq can never be criticized.

Lmao. Of course she is doing it right now, as I wrote this thread. Couldn't be more perfect.

https://twitter.com/Wilson__Valdez/status/1364989906804695041

I'll just end the thread by stating the obvious. No one is defending the actual language/behavior in the emails themselves. No reporter, no matter how bad/unethical deserves to be sent racial or gendered slurs. The nutpicking to deflect away from criticism is the issue.

Just amazing the amount of shameless projection & gaslighting these people do, from the people who bleated on about how "Bernie bro harassment was a myth" while their literal friends were the ones doing the harassment.

The guy in the 1st SJ screen above, who some of you may know, has been doxxed multiple times, had several anon bar complaints written about him, calls to his office, emails to his boss, etc. But it is *he* who is trying to drive their 'targets' offline. Utterly shameless.