Now I say perhaps because these two takes from @JoyAnnReid should be etched into stone for the rest of human history.
But maybe the all-time best comes from - who else - @JRubinBlogger, who politely asked Avenatti to consider running for Congress before running for President (“I love ya, but…”)
But don’t be fooled. This wasn’t just the fangirling daydreams of a few chatty media types.
We had countless stories just like this one from @NBCNews that helped build Avenatti into a folk icon.
They have…not aged perfectly.
There were a lot of takes about how brilliant Avenatti was, so well positioned to strike at Trump, so likely to be his undoing.
This from @latimes captures the sentiment well. “Trump meets his match”
I’m…not confident this should be the takeaway, @JuliaDavisNews.
For @USATODAY, Avenatti had “cornered” the President and his team (this was around impeachment - Avenatti repeatedly said Trump wouldn’t serve out his term)
Some of the framing was…a little much.
Here, @frankrichny for @NYMag says that, despite the criticism, Avenatti is “the one media whore I can’t get enough of”
There were loving profiles in places like @nytimes.
(That also includes glowing actual coverage about Avenatti and, as we’ll get to soon, his future ambitions).
But it wasn’t just the Times who profiled him. Here’s @NPR which, as a reminder, gets a cut of your tax dollars, doing the same.
And of course the media hung on every twist and turn of the Avenatti saga.
Who can forget the fawning coverage of his presidential ambitions?
I’m not sure the idea that “Michael Avenatti’s Past Won’t Stop Him” - running for President or otherwise - has held up @TIME.
But the worst outlet had to be @MSNBC. Avenatti was a regular fixture on the outlet. They all but played comms director for him, even covering his Twitter spats with President Trump.
@maddow helped push some serious propaganda. And @AriMelber I…I don’t know what to tell you.
A few predictions & other commentary on the network haven’t exactly aged perfectly.
@JoeNBC, might you have preferred your original skepticism?
And @JonathanTurley, do you still stand by the idea that “the Michael I know would not make any allegations that he couldn’t back up”?
Again, the coverage was weird. But I think I will - in this case and in all others - dispute the suggestion that “CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is America” @washingtonpost@AlexHortonTX
There should be an enormous lesson here: the media is incredibly vulnerable to a certain variety of camera-savvy huckster who tells them what they want to hear.
The media was the mark, and boy did they get taken by Michael Avenatti.
The question now becomes: will anyone learn anything?
Alas, my hunch is no. No one has faced consequences from promoting and fawning over the fraud of Avenatti. Avenatti was good for business. And we’ll see more like him in no time.
Avenatti is the apotheosis of a character that’s been all-too-common in the Trump era: a thinly veiled fraud whom the media push because they say mean things about a Republican.
If the media hopes to build any trust with the American people, they need to stop creating Avenattis.
With the pandemic in the rearview mirror, it can be easy to forget the destruction that it caused.
Food banks have been hit hard. In your charity, if you liked the thread, a donation to Capital Area Food Bank would go a long way. capitalareafoodbank.org
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.