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.
A newly declassified CIA report on Joe Biden & Ukraine blows the doors off claims from the legacy press, in the lead up to the 2020 election and beyond, that Trump was pushing a “conspiracy theory” about Biden’s corruption.
Remember how the press buried Burisma? ⤵️
First, the facts. The report unearths how Biden blocked the release of intel from Ukrainian sources validating allegations of bribery tied to Biden’s diplomatic push to oust a prosecutor there in 2015, tied to his son Hunter’s work with the gas company Burisma.
You may remember this story because Biden’s having helped oust a prosecutor in a foreign country to allegedly protect his family’s corruption came up in the 2020 election.
To hear @ABC tell it, that was a “debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory.”
The media are melting down about former FBI director Jim Comey’s indictment, calling it Trump’s “retribution.”
But if prosecuting a political rival is such an outrage, why’d they cheer along when Biden went after Trump, Bannon & Navarro?
Some side-by-sides ⤵️
I want you to help me spot the difference in tone.
With Comey, @CNN put five — five! — reporters on the byline to declare the indictment was an “escalation” in “Trump’s effort to prosecute his political enemies.”
Where was that when Biden’s DOJ indicted Bannon? “A victory”
And @CNN wasn’t any better on Peter Navarro, another Trump aide indicted under Biden.
Rather than an “effort to prosecute…political enemies,” CNN quoted the prosecutor to tell the story.
Why is the claim of the government the framing of the piece under Biden? I have a guess.
The outrage over Kimmel’s canning is incredibly stupid, but it’s also enormously rich coming from the same media outlets who have cheered the government actually censoring people, particularly during COVID.
Let me know if you can spot the difference in tone? ⤵️
This @CNN headline made me think this story needed a thread.
Kimmel’s suspension is “straight from a European strongman’s playbook,” per @CNN’s @brianstelter.
When Biden cracked down on free speech during Covid, CNN hyped up the effort.
Few promoted the government’s actual attack on free speech more aggressively than the same @brianstelter now calling a comedian’s shelving evidence of autocracy, or something.
I know there’s a lot going on but we just had a media conspiracy implode that I think captures something important about the corporate press.
Did you hear about how Trump was allegedly going after John Bolton as retribution for his criticism?
Well…follow along ⤵️
We saw a week straight of media suggestions that Trump was abusing the powers of the state to deal out “retribution” to John Bolton following the news that the FBI (“Trump’s DOJ!” headlines rang out) raided his house.
We were in “unsettling” times, to hear @nytimes tell it.
The *Editorial Board* at @nytimes put out an even more dramatic statement, asking who Trump’s next payback victim after Bolton would be.
A single poll has bootstrapped a media narrative that DC residents are outraged by Trump’s takeover.
I poked around the cross tabs of the poll — of 600 or so of DC’s more comfortable residents — and I think it’s pretty suspect.
How come? Follow along: ⤵️
Let’s start with the poll. The @washingtonpost talked to 604 people, of whom 90% — 90%! — self-described as living in “very good” or “good” neighborhoods.
So, fine. 80% of people who like where they live in DC are upset.
But even beyond that, it’s worth asking whether this poll really captures DC’s opinion.
In the poll, only 31% describe crime as a “serious” or “very serious” problem in DC.
When @washingtonpost asked this same question in May, *50%* said it was a serious problem.
I feel like I’m losing my mind about the Biden autopen pardons.
The former president said he made every decision. His staff says that he didn’t actually make the final call on thousands of them.
We’re supposed to treat this as normal?
I try to unpack. ⤵️
This got new life from a Biden interview w/ @nytimes.
NYT leads by repeating Biden’s claim that he made the calls…burying the admissions that 1) he really didn’t & 2) where he allegedly did, the aids sending details to the autopen weren’t in the room when the call was made…
…instead, they relied on what senior staff had allegedly heard, which was then passed along.
The piece ends with the revelation that Biden’s then-chief of staff gave the final sign off.
Given what the former admin has lied about, why should we trust this reporting of events?