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
It really does confuse me that “just sue the government whenever it violates your rights” as a conservative alternative to passing better laws didn’t die with the decade (and counting) of harassment Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop have experienced. google.com/amp/s/www.chri…
Good lawyers have been enormously important to the conservative movement, esp in beating back the excesses of progressivism. But a legal approach is fundamental insufficient as the only tool of public policy.
People will frame this as legislating morality, anti-small government, whatever. But, at its root, it’s a recognition that legislatures need to legislate, and that task can be done for reasons both good and ill. We shouldn’t ignore an entire branch of government.
1. Really bad 2. Rioters should be punished under the law 3. Obviously not a ‘coup’ or coup attempt or ‘insurrection’ 4. Undeserving of the attention it continues to get/overblown by left/media 5. Doesn’t tell us much about state of the country
There should be enough here to piss off most parties
I get that there’s lots of commentaries about how awful it is that people have downplayed how bad it is, but most of the takes from serious people that I think miss the mark are about extrapolating too much from a really unique and isolated incident.
A lot of media outlets are bending over backwards to avoid saying that @SenWhitehouse’s decades-long membership in and familial part-ownership (!) of an all-white beach club is racist.
Take a look at the mental gymnastics involved so far ⤵️
I want to start with @nytimes because the way they’ve handled it is emblematic of coverage broadly for two reasons:
1. They’ve mostly ignored it - so far, just a brief mention in their daily roundup 2. They’ve omitted the actual criticism from the title (“exclusive” not racist)
This “exclusive” (vs. problematic) framing is everywhere.
At a time when race/racism has dominated US media coverage, having a (Democratic) Senator as a member/his wife as a part-owner apparently makes it simply an “elite private club” instead of an all-white one to @CBSNews.
Okay I assumed that WaPo video couldn’t be as bad as people were saying but I watched it and it is so much worse, to a point where I can’t even describe it. Just watch: washingtonpost.com/video/the-lily…
“White accountability groups are really helpful” this must be a spoof
“White people need to start getting together, specifically about race” no no guys I’m no expert here but I’m quite confident that this is part of the problem
In the last two months, @staceyabrams has gone from calling proposed voting laws “Jim Crow in a suit and tie” to something no one ever objected to and, rather than rightly point out the gaslighting, @washingtonpost and @AaronBlake called it “an evolution”
The piece calls the new tone from Dems “a significant rhetorical concession” and I really just can’t imagine any member of the media treating this bald-faced hypocrisy the same if Abrams had an R after her name.
Abrams and the Democrats lied about voter IDs, slandered their Republican colleagues as racist, and now are backtracking because polling has - once again - shown that the American people support voter ID laws.