Governor Cuomo has resigned. The same outlets & talking heads who fawned endlessly over him are, suddenly, cheering along to his undoing, without a whiff of self-awareness for their role in making him into an icon.
Look at these 180s⤵️
You can’t start with anyone but @CNN. Perhaps no one gave more free air time to Cuomo to build him into a hero as an antidote to Trump.
Perhaps they’ve since forgotten.
I mean. Does anyone think that this is journalism? Are we reporting on the news here @CNN?
@ChrisCillizza said in May 2020 that Cuomo had “benefited from radical transparency” and “came under criticism for being, essentially, a terrific bureaucrat” and I think about that a lot.
@MSNBC - without a shred of self-awareness - went from “Cuomo’s conducting a symphony” to “his own flaws brought him down”
@JoyAnnReid has instantly pivoted from Cuomo’s PR department to GOP whataboutism.
The long tail of Cuomo’s departure is only possible because of the heights that people like Reid built him up to.
I’ll be honest. I think a lot of these don’t necessarily need a terrible amount of analysis. @washingtonpost
@NPR’s original piece and what’s come to light since reminds me about how Cuomo told a female reporter back in 2017 that her question about addressing sexual misconduct in the run up to #MeToo was a “disservice to women.”
Also entirely apropos of nothing, remember that Cuomo received over $110,000 in donations from Harvey Weinstein and his company and was the last high-profile Dem to give that money back after initially balking at doing so. google.com/amp/s/www.nyti…
Speaking of the Times, I won’t pretend this is necessarily indicative of everything that @nytimes reported but, man, live by the punchy headline, die by the punchy headline.
The cognitive dissonance here from @voguemagazine is just remarkable.
I’m not sure this is what @RollingStone had in mind when they had a cover feature last year asking Cuomo about what comes next.
Commentary writers are truly gifted in their ability to forget what they’ve said previously on a certain topic. @maureendowd provides a case study in that here.
But no one - no one - can outdo @JRubinBlogger, from bona fide Cuomo reply guy to ‘oh he’s just a distraction’
You know how we get more Cuomo’s moving forward? With this type of memoryholing.
He only held on this long because so many people were willing to turn a blind eye to one of the “good guys” all this time.
As I’ve said many times, some coverage was really good, as seen here. Some reporters/outlets didn’t fall for it. A lot of the press in Albany hounded Cuomo on his Covid response, sexual misconduct allegations and more, as they have for years.
But for the rest of them, I don’t want to hear about Cuomo unless it starts and ends with some accountability and introspection: what they got wrong, why, and how to do better next time.
As @neontaster pointed out, yes, everyone is within their right to change their opinions of a public person when new information comes to light.
But the corporate press needs to reckon with how they spent 18 months completely blinded to Cuomo’s failings, personal & professional.
The media is at its best when they speak truth to power. It’s at its worst when instead it seeks to uncritically glamorize the powerful.
We got a lot of the latter here, at a time where we desperately needed the former.
So I beg you, outlets and reporters who got this wrong: learn from this experience. Improve from it.
Be watchdogs, not lapdogs.
And for everyone else - most of whom I’m sure have no confidence that that’ll happen: stay vigilante. Don’t take stories at face value. Don’t worship politicians or people in power.
Be wary when the powers that be appear to be the least wary. Like, well, with things like this.
I know these threads usually focus on the bad, but it wouldn’t be right not to recognize the most dogged, determined journalist holding Cuomo accountable: @JaniceDean. She’s been raising hell since well before most people knew anything was amiss in New York
• • •
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.