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.
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.
If you missed Trump’s address to Congress last night, I wouldn’t rely on media stories to explain it.
Rather than report on a speech viewers found “inspiring,” the corporate press played PR for Democrats.
Wanna know why trust in the press is underwater? Look. ⤵️
A @CBSNews poll of viewers found “A large majority of viewers approve” of Trump’s message, overwhelmingly describing it as “inspiring,” rather than “divisive.”
The speech was certainly partisan - and viewers skewed right.
But the press’s own view appears to slant their takes.
What leads me to claim that? Well, just look at how @CBSNews decided to report on the speech.
They tweeted out that “there was a horribly tense feeling,” and it was “filled with drama.”
Why focus on how their reporter felt, rather than viewers?
Having worked on the Hill I get the ubiquity of Politico Pro and its cost.
But I think it takes an enormous suspension of disbelief to call it a conspiracy theory to look askance at the millions of dollars the Biden admin paid the paper that ran this hatchet job on his opponent.
Which, to be clear, is exactly what outlets like @CNN are doing.
@CNN This from @axios seems particularly unreasonable.
It isn’t a “fake theory” to say that Politico is “funded by the government.” It is, to the tune of $8 million. That isn’t in dispute.
Quick 🧵 revisiting corporate media claims on the Covid lab leak theory then (a “conspiracy theory,” “misinformation,” etc.) vs. now (“okay the CIA even admits it”).