Today’s “Justice for J6” rally consisted mostly of reporters, cops & FBI agents, fizzling out in about an hour.
But in the last few days, the corporate press fearmongered constantly about it.
Will they follow up now that it, unsurprisingly, amounted to nothing? ⤵️
Perhaps the worst of it came from @CNN, who pushed nonsense for days leading up to the event.
“Renewed fears of political violence grip Capitol Hill” actually turned into “more press than protestors.”
Will CNN tell that story now?
Bringing on a former FBI official who abused his power for political reasons to talk about this “rally” and why it should be taken “very seriously” is laying it on a little thick, don’t you think, @CNN?
Maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t that right wing media downplayed the rally, they just didn’t deceive their viewers into thinking the rally was going to amount to much of anything, unlike left-wing media, @brianstelter?
But of course it wasn’t just CNN.
@MSNBC gave the event wall-to-wall coverage in recent days. The “700” people estimated proved to be off by a factor of, oh, 7 or so, but who’s counting?
They had their chief voices trying to convince their viewers that this was the second coming of January 6th, because that’s what gets people to tune in.
Here’s @maddow and @AriMelber, both breathlessly concerned about today’s nothingburger.
There was a terrorist attack that killed a Capitol Police officer (and almost killed another) two months after January 6th, but according to @NPR, a couple dozen losers showing up for a protest is the “biggest security test since Jan. 6”
Deranged. Absolutely deranged.
As someone who resides in the Capitol area, I promise you, @nytimes, people aren’t actually “on edge” and it’s now pretty clear that there was never going to be any “turmoil”
@nytimes probably did more to “valorize” January 6th by breathlessly covering today’s gathering of reporters than the handful of people who showed up today.
In the days leading up to it we also had breathless coverage of Capitol Police’s prep for the non-event, like here from @nytimes and @ABC
“Police ready this time” @AP assured us, as if today’s protestors could’ve overwhelmed an internet chatroom.
@USATODAY snuck in “where protestors may arrive with weapons” completely absent evidence, just in case some of their readers weren’t sufficiently scared or fired up.
Serious question: was there ever a reason to believe this, @ryanbort /@RollingStone? Doesn’t this sound a little hysterical in retrospect?
I’ve written plenty about Jan 6 & why it was terrible (medium.com/arc-digital/im… and google.com/amp/s/www.news…) but the way the media continues to torture the narrative around it to score clicks is really shameful.
And this is just the latest example of it. Surely we’ll have more.
What these outlets have done is exploit unfounded fears for clicks, and in so doing they’ve painted their political opponents - all Republicans - as anti patriotic lunatics for not being vocal enough about something that never mattered to begin with.
It’s shameful.
Will these outlets explain how they got this frightening predictions wrong, and why? And how they’ll avoid hyping up a “security threat” that isn’t in the future?
Something tells me that won’t happen.
But the page will turn, there’ll be a new “outrage” tomorrow, and everyone will have forgotten how the media blew this completely out of proportion before the next time they pull this stunt again.
Stunning that these people have lost the trust of the American people, isn’t it?
And it’s interesting how this non story got so much more coverage than real problems, like the humanitarian crisis happening on our border.
The new book “Original Sin” from Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson recounts the effort to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline ahead of the election. The authors point to many guilty parties.
The one glaring omission? Their colleagues in the corporate press. Follow along ⤵️
There are numerous dramatic reveals. The Biden team considered condoning him to a wheelchair? Maybe in his fog he forgot about the border?
But as I worked on a review for @commonplc, the one thought that I kept coming back to was that you can’t tell this story without the press.
Perhaps no one was more vital to the continued fiction that Biden had it together than the media.
Tapper and Thompson even highlight some of the telling moments.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis is a tragedy I know first-hand.
But our sympathy can’t silence questions about Biden’s cognitive decline, clarified just days ago by the Hur tape.
The media tried to bury the story then. They’re trying again now.
I’ve got the receipts. ⤵️
When the report first came out in 2024, outlets rushed to demean Hur, accusing him of serving as a Republican hatchet man.
Just look at this take from @USATODAY, who assembled sympathetic voices to make the case that Hur “crossed the line.” They found an expert to call it a “disgrace” and then featured the obviously unbiased Eric Holder to lead a section titled “Way too many gratuitous remarks.”
The audio makes clear that Hur, if anything, played down how alarming the claims were.
(If you haven’t listened to the Hur audio yet, you should.)
It should go without saying, but the media cultivating this type of baseless hysteria about an admin for partisan reasons is much more of a threat to the underpinnings of our democracy than anything Trump has actually done.
Quick 🧵⤵️
A couple quotes:
“If you think that there’s this thing out there called America, and it’s exceptional, that means you don’t have to do anything” to stop fascism.
What? What does that even mean??
That if you, like millions of Americans!, believe in American exceptionalism…you’re a fascist?
Really?
“The powers that be can do whatever they want to you”
Trump can’t even deport people who have deportation orders against them without a federal judge stepping in.
Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
I’m not sure people realize just how egregious some of NPR’s “journalism” has been. Amid the debate about defunding the network, I wanted to walk down memory lane to revisit some of its worst coverage.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
First, perhaps the most egregious display of activist journalism: their response to the Hunter Biden laptop story of corruption involving a major party candidate on the eve of the election.
Not only did @NPR not cover it, they bragged about refusing to do so.
Insofar as @NPR did cover the Hunter Biden scandal, they actively tried to cover it up.
They applauded Facebook & Twitter strangling the story as part of a push against “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The story, of course, turned out to be far from invented.