Today the “Russian bounties” story - where Russia was supposedly paying to have US soldiers killed - quietly imploded.
For the last year, Dems, the media & others have pushed this conspiracy theory endlessly.
If you think that’s exaggerative, have a look⤵️
The worst offender was @nytimes, who broke the original story and went on to convince the families of soldiers who had been KIA that perhaps the Russians were to blame and President Trump didn’t care.
Will we get a follow up? Will the families?
But they were far from alone. @CNN pushed the conspiracy theory just as frequently as anyone did.
You’ll notice that, while some of the stories note the bounties are “alleged”, eventually CNN dropped that, despite the narrative being disputed (and having since fallen apart).
@CNN also made a habit of having elected Dems on to suggest a path forward on these unverified allegations, glossing over the fact that they may or may not even be true. Here’s @SenGillibrand and @SenDuckworth. (More on electeds later)
@brianstelter, I’m asking you earnestly: will you retract this story? Or at least amend it significantly, given the implications of your reporting?
If not, why not?
@washingtonpost gave Trump Four Pinocchios on a fact check when he said that the intel - which, again, was unverified and has since evaporated - was even disputed.
I mean, cmon!
But probably the most unhinged in their insistence was @MSNBC. They pushed this conspiracy theory time and time again across their platform as if the allegations were rock solid.
@MSNBC unsurprisingly got their chief Russian propagandist, @maddow/@MaddowBlog involved on this one, too.
You would think that the Russian collusion hoax imploding would chasten her. Apparently not.
But Maddow isn’t @MSNBC’s only conspiracy theorist.
@JoyAnnReid was one of the most outspoken proponents of the Russian bounties conspiracy theory (these are only a handful of her tweets - she could’ve had a thread to herself).
The rush among outlets to go from explosive but unconfirmed reports to gospel truth was contagious.
And the lower house wasn’t any better. @SpeakerPelosi was probably the worst offender.
In retrospect, it sure looks like Trump was right to call the story - forced out of terrorist detainees - a hoax.
But there were plenty of others in the House. Many of the names won’t shock you. Here’s: @RepSwalwell (go figure) @RepAdamSchiff (double go figure) @tedlieu (quickly becoming a 🧵favorite) and @sethmoulton (“treasonous behavior”)
Of course the trolls, grifters, child predators and the rest of the ghouls at @ProjectLincoln were pushing this one hard.
I try to have grace and charity on here. I can’t muster it with the Lincoln Project.
All of the internet loudmouths were on this one. I’ve only got so much space and so much patience but here we’ll see: @DanRather @tribelaw (go figure) @KevinMKruse and @Scaramucci (this might be libel?)
There hasn’t been a more widespread or pernicious conspiracy theory in recent memory than “Russian bounties.” It was always thinly sourced and disputed. Yet it was treated as the gospel truth because Orange Man Bad.
Where are the corrections? Where are the retractions?
I don’t think we’ll get any. I don’t think any heads will roll. I don’t think any lessons will be learned.
But you know what I do think? I do think this’ll happen again. And that’s embarrassing.
In many ways, this story was the Russian Collusion hoax in miniature: Trump is bad, so we’ll believe anything that’s said about him, especially if it involves Russia.
A truly shameful showing from those who are meant to tell the American people the truth.
For those who have asked, I don’t have anything to sell or subscribe to. But if you can, food banks are in desperate need because of the pandemic, and need your help.
Whatever happened to Harris and Biden’s “strongest economy ever” that the media spent so much time hyping up in the lead up to the election?
I revisit the claims, and explain why they were off the mark about the economy all along, in my latest @AmerCompass.
Quick🧵thread🧵⤵️
It can be easy, in the wake of an election, to forget just how dominant a media narrative was.
One that’s already fading from view was how “great” the economy was, and why it would benefit Harris on Election Day. americancompass.org/its-still-the-…
As a refresher, check out this headline from @axios about the data.
@YahooFinance upgraded Biden’s economic grade to an A. That captures the press sentiment at the time quite well.
In recent days, the mainstream media has taken nakedly ridiculous claims about the tattoos of @PeteHegseth, Trump’s SecDef nominee, to spin up a story alleging he’s an extremist.
It’s an egregious example of politically driven “journalism.” I unpack why. ⤵️
The story really started with @AP, who ran an article claiming that two tattoos that @PeteHegseth has have ties to extremism, citing an extremely thin (and downright suspect) report.
They used that to label him a potential “insider threat” in their headline.
It wasn’t until 3 paragraphs in that a reader was told what that claim rested on: a tattoo of a Latin phrase. They’d go on to mention “concerns” about a cross tattoo as well.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.
I know it seems silly, but the media meltdown about Trump working at a McDonald’s is clarifying about why trust in the press has cratered.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit some of the most deranged takes. ⤵️
The press’s response to Trump deciding to troll Harris for her unsupported claims that she worked at McDonald’s by working at the chain himself sent the media into a tizzy.
Here’s @CNN, suddenly apologetic about a corporation in the political limelight.
My favorite take came from @nytimes, who appeared outraged that…Trump didn’t wear a hairnet.
The media is already trying to memory-hole the (first) attempted assassination of former President Trump.
I suspect many of you have felt it happening, but I walked through the details for The Spectator, and wanted to share some of them here.
Follow along ⤵️
First, I just want to level-set to make sure I’m not crazy.
Someone tried to kill the former POTUS, who, according to a variety of polls, is the odds-on favorite to return to that office. Tons of details didn’t make sense.
Seems like the press story of the year, right?
Well…
So far, the press doesn’t seem to think so.
It started as soon as the shots rang out. Do you remember how bad & unhelpful the headlines were?
I’ve got screenshots. @USATODAY @NBCNews (“popping noises”) @CNN (“injured in incident”) @latimes (“loud noises want through the crowd”)