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.
If you missed Trump’s address to Congress last night, I wouldn’t rely on media stories to explain it.
Rather than report on a speech viewers found “inspiring,” the corporate press played PR for Democrats.
Wanna know why trust in the press is underwater? Look. ⤵️
A @CBSNews poll of viewers found “A large majority of viewers approve” of Trump’s message, overwhelmingly describing it as “inspiring,” rather than “divisive.”
The speech was certainly partisan - and viewers skewed right.
But the press’s own view appears to slant their takes.
What leads me to claim that? Well, just look at how @CBSNews decided to report on the speech.
They tweeted out that “there was a horribly tense feeling,” and it was “filled with drama.”
Why focus on how their reporter felt, rather than viewers?
Having worked on the Hill I get the ubiquity of Politico Pro and its cost.
But I think it takes an enormous suspension of disbelief to call it a conspiracy theory to look askance at the millions of dollars the Biden admin paid the paper that ran this hatchet job on his opponent.
Which, to be clear, is exactly what outlets like @CNN are doing.
@CNN This from @axios seems particularly unreasonable.
It isn’t a “fake theory” to say that Politico is “funded by the government.” It is, to the tune of $8 million. That isn’t in dispute.
Quick 🧵 revisiting corporate media claims on the Covid lab leak theory then (a “conspiracy theory,” “misinformation,” etc.) vs. now (“okay the CIA even admits it”).
Trump’s return to the Oval Office has me reflecting on some of the worst “journalism” during his first term.
Of that long list, one in particular jumps out: the corporate press hype around the Steele dossier.
Do you *really* remember how bad it was? Follow along. ⤵️
Before I dive in, would really encourage you to read my full piece at @Holden_Court, because there’s too much to fit in a thread.
That said, surely you remember the dossier, a bunch of dramatic claims about Trump that even @nytimes now calls “discredited” open.substack.com/pub/drewholden…
But before that, there was the hype: the hero worship of Christopher Steele, the spy who was going to save American from Trump, the Russian puppet.
I mean, @washingtonpost put “hero” right in the title.
The rest of the piece is worse. WaPo repeats the claims — that the Russians had kompromat on him for engaging with prostitutes! Maybe Trump was compromised — verbatim without mentioning in the first instance that there’s no evidence these claims are true! Look at the highlights.
An unthinkable breach of journalistic ethics. There was plenty more.