This one is a little different than usual, but I wanted to break down the news cycle around the police shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant.
It might be the worst I’ve ever seen.
A number of outlets rushed to break the news - about a 16 year old girl who was killed by Columbus Police - before we had any details, tying it to the George Floyd verdict.
Other places raced to get the story out without context, including @BBCWorld, @Newsweek, @Reuters and @thedailybeast, who broke the original story that relied on the account of a relative who proved unreliable.
Then, later that night, the body cam footage of the officer came out. It clearly shows the officer shooting Bryant just as she is about to stab another child.
Stills are below.
At the risk of being uncharitable, it is inconceivable to me that, anything but what the officer did would have resulted in serious harm to or the death of the other girl.
But this point was entirely lost among the reporting and the conversation more broadly.
@NPR’s storytelling here is a classic case of how outlets can set narratives that are too stubborn to yield to updated information.
Look at the number of retweets for the supposed story vs. the updated, more accurate version post-body cam.
Almost a 20x drop-off.
And others included that there was body cam footage but deliberately elide what the video actually shows: a police officer protection a girl who otherwise could well have been killed.
I don’t know how you can watch the video and have these be the details that stand out to you if what you’re concerned about is whether or not the officer did the right thing.
A 13 year old was stabbed to death by another teen down the street in Cincinnati on Monday. google.com/amp/s/www.fox1…
And it wasn’t just activists. You had a sitting senator, @SenSherrodBrown, run with this narrative. And @CoriBush in the House.
These are our legislators! Pushing a false story made to look needlessly divisive.
Some people - like Floyd family attorney @AttorneyCrump - just lied about whether or not she was armed.
It’s one thing when activists lie in furtherance of their goals. But when the media is deliberately misleading their audience for the sake of a narrative, it’s an enormous, malignant problem.
@thedailybeast, what’s the goal of this type of reporting? What benefit does the public have from this?
It calls to mind the @KingJames post, which I can’t imagine reading as anything but targeted harassment.
I won’t share the full thing, but when you say “you’re next” and share the image of a police officer in the public crosshairs, how can it be read as anything but a threat?
We’ve got to remember that Ma’Khia Bryant is clearly a victim in all this. Numerous people and systems failed her in her short life to get to this point. That is enormously, irreparably sad.
This thread, about the odds facing kids like Bryant in the foster care system, is depressingly illuminating.
But suggesting that the problem here is the police is bad faith, as is pretending like any police use of force is illegitimate. This type of push is a recipe for civic disaster (and a world where police forces nationwide see their numbers dwindle dangerously low).
And this isn’t to overlook that we have serious, systemic problems with policing in this country. Many of them intersect with issues of race.
But we aren’t going to get anywhere on any of them by shutting our eyes to the facts of what happened, as @ProfessorCrunk is doing.
We’ve got to tell the truth. Lying to fit the narrative may earn clicks, but it won’t change hearts and minds. And it won’t address the tragedies that led to the death of Ma’Khia Bryant.
And the American people deserve better than to have falsehoods foisted on them by the media.
Sometimes folks ask what they can do to support the work I do. The simple answer is I’ve got nothing. But you should take what you might donate & help a local food bank who needs it. Particularly for folks in DC, Capital Area Food Bank is a great choice. capitalareafoodbank.org
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The biggest media story of Biden’s time in office is how the press covered up his cognitive decline…right up until he became a disastrous political liability for Democrats.
Wanna know why people don’t trust the corporate press? Look at these side by sides ⤵️
It’s stunning the pace with which the media narrative shifted.
In 3 weeks time, @washingtonpost went from blaming “cheapfake” videos misleading audiences as the cause of concern around Biden to a headline that even foreign officials were alarmed by Biden’s “accelerating” aging.
Where was the @washingtonpost for those three weeks between ‘four Pinocchios for this lie, we all know Biden doesn’t dance!’ to “Biden has slowed considerably over the last several months.”
The gov’t finally released pictures of Biden with his son Hunter’s business partners.
You may remember the corporate press alleging for years that there’s no evidence Biden had any contact with Hunter’s shady businesses.
I think some corrections are in order. ⤵️
For years, the corporate press ran cover for claims that President Biden wasn’t involved in Hunter’s unsavory business dealings, particularly with foreign governments.
That was all a sham.
I think @nytimes should correct the record now that we know their reporting is false.
If this story is worth reporting on — and it appears that @washingtonpost thought it was, at least when the narrative helped Democrats — then it should be worth following up when we get new information that makes clear the Post reported in error.
Biden’s pardoning of his son Hunter says an enormous amount about the president’s views of justice.
But it also says a lot about the willingness of the mainstream media—the nation’s noble fact checking corps—to repeat bogus claims that suit Democrats.
Remember? ⤵️
For starters, let’s revisit the coverage of how Biden wouldn’t do what he just did.
Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son, no way. He would trust our legal system.
The media repeated it at every turn, without a shred of incredulity.
Here’s @washingtonpost
Seemingly every outlet did the same. @CNN had a couple of my favorites.
Look at the lede in on this first one.
The media’s job isn’t to simply repeat what politicians tell them. Whatever happened to “defenders of our democracy” and all that?
The news that MSNBC may soon have a new owner (and that it might be a certain X power user) compelled me to finally open my “MSNBC conspiracy theories” screenshot folder and, woo boy, there are a lot.
If you’d like to revisit them, buckle up, and follow along. ⤵️
There’s nowhere better to start than with Russiagate.
Do you remember the promotion from @chrislhayes, @MalcolmNance, @maddow and others at @MSNBC that perhaps Donald Trump was a Russian agent?
I, for one, will not be forgetting.
But there was plenty of other insanity from the gang at MSNBC about Russiagate.
Here are just a couple.
The first seems apropos with Trump again picking a cabinet.
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.