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.
You remember Russian Collusion. But do you remember the “Russian bounties” allegation, where the press ran with a conspiracy theory to make Trump look like a monster?
With the debate tonight, I think it’s timely to revisit a falsehood Biden pushed. Follow along ⤵️
It started with a scoop from @nytimes that claimed Russia had placed bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan, that Trump knew about it, and he did nothing.
Days later, @washingtonpost followed up with the claim that these bounties—again, allegedly ignored by Trump—led to the deaths of American servicemen.
Do you *really* remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? I fear we’ve lost the plot.
With Hunter’s name in the news I wanted to revisit the extent to which the media went to cover up corruption allegations against—and at the behest of—his father.
Follow along. ⤵️
You have to start with the scoop from @nypost and @EmmaJoNYC.
Their lede from October was damning:
“Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”
The story was fundamentally about Joe Biden’s alleged corruption. It was huge news, on the eve of an election.
The press leapt to claim the scoop wasn’t legit. And they reframed the issue: now it was about Hunter, not Joe. Here’s @NPR before/after
Good to see the NYT’s considerable resources being put to finding the truth in a debate between private citizens that led one of them to raise a flag upside down.
Real afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted stuff here.
It has only become “news” because of the pivot to left wing clickbait that Trump inspired among the press.
It’s politically inspired harassment and not only is it noxious it’s driving a deep animus among its target demo that is fraying what remains of the bounds of our body politic and society more broadly.
I’ve got an oldie-but-a-goodie for you from the archive of unhinged media coverage.
Do you remember how insane the coverage of Trump’s killing of Iranian Gen. Soleimani was?
I bet it’s worse than you remember. Follow along ⤵️
It all started with what I’ve gotta say might be the coldest presidential use of social media in history.
After ordering the strike that killed Iranian General Qaseem Soleimani, Trump tweeted out simply a picture of an American flag.
Many in the media went berserk.
First, the issue was directly with what Trump had done. Outlets claimed that he was rushing America into a war. @washingtonpost tried to point out the hypocrisy of a president who had said he would prevent a war.
My hottest take is that, outside of the Beltway (something, to be clear, I am not!) most Americans to the right of MSNBC simply don’t feel anything like “vertigo” about Trump.
I think part of why Trump is such a visceral experience for so many people who have been in DC for a long time is that these types of people (again, me included!) weren’t familiar with the idea that they could viscerally hate a politician even when he’s out of office.
I think, for lots of people, hating a politician for who they are is not a new experience, but is in fact their default setting for politicians of at least one political party — if not both.