Today, President Biden announced his intention to end the war in Afghanistan, to great media fanfare.
You may remember, way back in 2019 & 2020, President Trump said the same thing.
Let me know if you can spot the difference in coverage then vs. now⤵️
When Trump said we were leaving, @CNN quoted the NATO Sec Gen with a “stark warning” about how “dangerous” the move would be.
But Biden’s decision? Well, on that one, we just get to hear from his people.
One of the things I’ve discussed before is how outlets can frame the narrative they want by focusing on people who support or oppose a certain policy. It’s misleading, but also a calling card of @CNN.
Starting to see it?
Once upon a time, @nytimes told us that Trump’s decision was a capitulation to the Taliban where we would get nothing in return - as if blood not shed and treasure not spent means nothing.
But Biden’s call? Well, for some reason these concerns seem to have evaporated.
For Trump, we hear about the “fears” of Afghan officials from @nytimes.
Biden, on the other hand, gets a sympathetic write up despite being the second most powerful man in the country during the height of US forces. Just incredible memoryholing here.
This one from @TIME might be the most egregious of them all. I mean. Cmon.
These tweets are mere months apart from @MSNBC. Stunningly, they found people to say the exact opposite things about the decision to pull out.
So much of today’s coverage reads as if nothing had ever been said to the contrary by anyone on @MSNBC
Its interesting that @maddow/@MaddowBlog no longer seem to see the invisible hand of Russia calling the shots now that it is Biden pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Instead, it’s a great thing.
Some places, like @NPR, don’t even seem to be trying at this rate.
Were no military leaders worried when Biden made the decision to do the same thing?
For PBS @NewsHour, Trump’s decisions were instantly refracted through the lens of those who oppose him.
For Biden, we just hear from him directly on the benefits of his plans.
When it was Trump making the decisions, @ABC rushed to tell us about how the decision would “undermine his administration’s agreement with the Taliban.”
It didn’t. And now that Biden is calling the shots, we’ve got nothing but pomp, circumstance and PR pull quotes.
I’ve got a separate thread on this but let this be your reminder that there isn’t any evidence of the existence of the Russian bounties story. And yet it also found its way into @ABC’s coverage for Trump. @nytimes too.
I’ve got to hand it to him, though. He may be wrong, but @MaxBoot is consistent in his urging that America be invested in building democracy or what have you despite the overwhelming evidence opposing the wisdom of doing so.
This situation has given us one of the clearest examples of framing for materially similar actions by different presidents.
Would anyone look at these side by sides and think they were impartial and balanced?
It should go without saying, but this is really, really bad.
The narrative shift is striking even though the goal of each policy is the same.
It isn’t sustainable to have information twisted and crammed into narratives this way.
I don’t have anything to sell or subscribe to. But if you can, homeless shelters are still in dire need following the pandemic, and need your help.
The new book “Original Sin” from Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson recounts the effort to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline ahead of the election. The authors point to many guilty parties.
The one glaring omission? Their colleagues in the corporate press. Follow along ⤵️
There are numerous dramatic reveals. The Biden team considered condoning him to a wheelchair? Maybe in his fog he forgot about the border?
But as I worked on a review for @commonplc, the one thought that I kept coming back to was that you can’t tell this story without the press.
Perhaps no one was more vital to the continued fiction that Biden had it together than the media.
Tapper and Thompson even highlight some of the telling moments.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis is a tragedy I know first-hand.
But our sympathy can’t silence questions about Biden’s cognitive decline, clarified just days ago by the Hur tape.
The media tried to bury the story then. They’re trying again now.
I’ve got the receipts. ⤵️
When the report first came out in 2024, outlets rushed to demean Hur, accusing him of serving as a Republican hatchet man.
Just look at this take from @USATODAY, who assembled sympathetic voices to make the case that Hur “crossed the line.” They found an expert to call it a “disgrace” and then featured the obviously unbiased Eric Holder to lead a section titled “Way too many gratuitous remarks.”
The audio makes clear that Hur, if anything, played down how alarming the claims were.
(If you haven’t listened to the Hur audio yet, you should.)
It should go without saying, but the media cultivating this type of baseless hysteria about an admin for partisan reasons is much more of a threat to the underpinnings of our democracy than anything Trump has actually done.
Quick 🧵⤵️
A couple quotes:
“If you think that there’s this thing out there called America, and it’s exceptional, that means you don’t have to do anything” to stop fascism.
What? What does that even mean??
That if you, like millions of Americans!, believe in American exceptionalism…you’re a fascist?
Really?
“The powers that be can do whatever they want to you”
Trump can’t even deport people who have deportation orders against them without a federal judge stepping in.
Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
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.