She’s trending so brief🧵thread🧵chronically the times that @JoyAnnReid used her platform to push unfounded vaccine fears because she didn’t like the guy in the Oval Office.
Starting with this interview in August 2020 (there are plenty more⤵️)
But to stay on this one for a second: in August 2020, @JoyAnnReid had a doctor on to say that she wouldn’t advise her patients to take the vaccine *even if* the head of the FDA signed off on it before clinical trials were complete.
What happened to trust the science?
And this was far from the only time this happened.
A few weeks later, in early September, she doubled down, endorsing an article titled “Trump’s vaccine can’t be trusted.”
You may remember that the vaccine (which Reid now firmly endorses) rolled out under Trump.
But her tin-hatted criticisms really took off in the middle of September 2020.
Here she is on the 17th, asking rhetorically “who on God’s earth would trust a vaccine approved by the @US_FDA ??”
That’s more than enough to get you kicked off Twitter these days.
@JoyAnnReid doubled down on her conspiracy the next day, September 18th.
“Why would any sensible person take a vaccine Trump had anything to do with?” she wonders.
This is textbook vaccine disinformation. The same kind she now laments.
How can she not see the hypocrisy?
Around that same time, Reid was pushing on other narratives, too. She had numerous voices on to spread fear and doubt around a vaccine being out on the original timeline. Yes, Trump missed that deadline, but only by about a month. Calling it “a total fantasy” is absurd.
Even after her guy won the election, she continued to insist that the vaccines couldn’t be trusted.
“I wouldn’t go near anything they Trump or his politicized FDA had anything to do with” she said, while criticizing the government program that helped develop lifesaving vaccines.
(This also just wasn’t true, as would be clarified the following day)
Later that month, she added an explicit racial element, suggesting that “science has been a tool of white supremacy” mere days before a vaccine that many people of color were initially skeptical of was set to roll out nationwide.
The problem in all of these is that what a responsible person should have done, if you’ll pardon the phrase, was trust the science. Trust that our incredibly rigorous process would produce the needed results - which it did, thank God.
But Reid couldn’t help herself.
Now, of course, Reid has entirely changed her tone, because it’s politically advantageous. Now she can’t possibly understand why any knuckle dragging moron wouldn’t take a vaccine that public health experts have endorsed.
I would encourage her to look into the mirror.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.