My modest proposal to the chattering class is that we do away with the op-ed construction “Is [public figure] bad for [immutable characteristic] people?”
“Kyrsten Sinema is the bisexual face of straight supremacy”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The NIH announced a bombshell: despite what Dr. Fauci said under oath, US taxpayers paid for gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
I hope that outlets will correct the record from when they assured us this wasn’t happening.
If they’ve forgotten, I’ve got screenshots⤵️
First, a bit of context. Today, NIH contradicted Dr Fauci & others, clarifying that a grantee, the EcoHealth Alliance, had conducted research (supposedly w/o NIH knowing) to see if bat coronavirus could jump to human receptors in mice.
You may remember a dust up in July between Dr. Fauci & @RandPaul around precisely this point.
It seems inarguable that what Fauci told Congress isn’t true. And the press uncritically helped him convince the American people otherwise. Look at how @CNBC frames it:
I don’t know if folks remember how bad the smear campaign was about NY Post’s Hunter Biden laptop reporting was, so quick trip back down memory lane.
Beyond the full-court press from Twitter & Facebook, the media & Dems worked overtime to shut down the story. Look ⤵️
It’s worth starting with @CNN. They brought on James Clapper to call the scoop - confirmed today by Politico - “textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft.” @brianstelter had a program about how it was obviously fake. @apbenven had an “anatomy” of it.
Where’s the follow up, guys?
I mean, for crying out loud, @NPR went through the trouble of explaining why they weren’t going to report on the story!
Per the CDC, there have been 439 people under 18 who’ve died with Covid nationwide, slightly less than half as many as have died from pneumonia, and about what we would expect from two flu seasons.
We are destroying kids’ lives so that adults can be - and, in lots of cases, simply feel - more safe, and we haven’t begun to wrestle with the immorality of that.
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?
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.
Few topics create as much hypocrisy as executive use of power.
Quick🧵comparing how the press has covered Biden’s vaccine mandate announcement vs. Trump’s threat to override governors on houses of worship.
Spot the difference? ⤵️
Back in May 2020, President Trump said he would override governors who wouldn’t allow houses of worship to open. Yesterday, President Biden said he would do the same about governors who wouldn’t enforce a vaccine mandate.
Can you spot the difference in how @CNN covered it?
Honestly, this could’ve been a thread just dedicated to @CNN.
Can you spot a difference in tone when it comes to who supports each approach?