In what might be the worst major newspaper article of all time, WaPo spends 30 paragraphs implying the DOJ is not investigating Trump's allies for 1/6, before confirming in paragraph #31 that the DOJ is investigating Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani for 1/6:
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
When major newspaper articles rely on inside sourcing, they're often constructed in a Frankenstein manner. The source insists on a certain misleading slant or narrative in exchange for inside info, so the article starts off hyping that misleading narrative to please the source.
Then 20-30 paragraphs in, the article reveals the bombshell piece of information that the source unwittingly let slip. The author presumably buries the bombshell that deep in the article, in the hope the source won't even read that far, and thus won't get pissed off.
That may sound silly, but it's how most people read this kind of stuff. If an article is 30 paragraphs long, you might read the first ten paragraphs, then start to get bored and skim the next ten paragraphs, and then skip to the final two paragraphs.
Why are newspapers so afraid of alienating their source, they're willing to bury the bombshell they've gotten from that source? If they alienate that source, they won't get any more inside information from that source as the story/scandal goes on.
But it sets up a situation where we now have confirmation the DOJ is targeting Stone and Giuliani for 1/6, and yet most of the public will never know it, because no one reads all the way to the thirty-first paragraph.
People like me will read the entire thing, find the bombshell buried in paragraph #31, and write a headline and article giving it the proper attention and context. Because I don't have to worry about hurting the WaPo source's feelings, I can just lead with the important truth.
But because most people are lazy, they'll see my headline, and they'll see that the major newspapers don't have similar headlines, and they'll just assume I made it up. Even though I literally got it directly from a major newspaper and pointed everyone to the specific paragraph.
"Why would Palmer have this inside information if no one else does!"

I literally got it from the 31st paragraph of this Washington Post article.

"But if it were important, Washington Post would have a headline about it too!"

No one understands how political journalism works.
This is nothing new. I've been fishing bombshells out of the 30th paragraph of major newspaper articles, and placing them into the proper context, for years. It's why my regular readers love me, and it's why everyone else thinks I make things up.
It's also why the mainstream media HATES me – I get to write the honestly constructed articles they wish they could write. I make them look bad. But you know what? Too bad. The manner in which they bury the lede, just to keep their sources happy, does the public a disservice.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Palmer Report

Palmer Report Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PalmerReport

Jan 18,
Trump is trying to walk a tightrope of keeping the door open for 2024 so the media will keep hyping it, so he can keep raking in money and pocketing it, while also putting enough excuses out there so no one will be shocked when he doesn’t run. Now he’s doing it again.
Trump and his people have leaked that he’ll only run in 2024 if Biden’s approval rating is 45% or lower. Biden’s average is at 43% and climbing, so Trump is laying the groundwork for not running. But because the media is pretending by Biden is in the 30s, it’ll keep hyping Trump.
It’s actually pretty clever on Trump’s part (something I rarely say). He’s giving the media a narrative about how Biden will be “doomed” by a Trump 2024 run unless he gets his “dismal” approval up into the mid forties (nevermind that it’s already in the mid forties).
Read 21 tweets
Jan 17,
Prosecutors have granted immunity to Matt Gaetz’s ex-girlfriend in exchange for the testimony she gave to the grand jury last week, per CBS News. This means there’s nearly a 100% chance Gaetz is being criminally indicted.
This comes on top of Joel Greenberg finally agreeing to a sentencing hearing, after having previously pushed back his sentencing multiple times because he wanted to get credit for the results of his cooperation. This suggests Gaetz will be indicted before Greenberg’s hearing.
The big question at this point is what the specific charges against Gaetz will be. Will it include the hideous alleged underage sex trafficking, or will it merely be for more transactional but more easily proven related charges like obstruction or money crimes?
Read 4 tweets
Jan 17,
Senate Democrats now say they think there’s a good chance the DOJ will prosecute Donald Trump. There’s a good chance they’re right. The breadcrumbs have been emerging for the past week.
1) The DOJ has reportedly begun having Capitol invaders formally attest, part of their guilty pleas, that they believed Trump wanted them to do it. The most obvious reason to do this is to use it as evidence in a criminal case against Trump.
2) The DOJ’s decision to wait and take down the entire Oath Keepers leadership at once seems aimed at getting them to compete with each other for a plea deal. The most likely targets would of such a deal would be Roger Stone or Alex Jones, who could then be flipped against Trump.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 16,
The 14th Amendment is not a magic wand that you can just wave to keep insurrectionist politicians off the ballot. As we've long said, that kind of battle has to be waged in court. That's now happening in a test case against Madison Cawthorn. But it'll take time, and may not work.
"But why don't the Democrats just..." because they can't. Just because the constitution says something, it doesn't mean you can just magic wand it into happening. The Democrats can't just say "Madison Cawthorn you're out" and have him fall through a trap door. This is reality.
For instance, the 5th Amendment makes very clear to me that airport security is unconstitutional, but I can't just announce that and magically make airport security go away. It would have to be done in court. And I'd lose, because the courts are idiots about the 5th Amendment.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 15,
We won't gain a single vote in 2022 by running around yelling "our democracy is nearly dead." That kind doomsday hysteria will COST us votes. If yelling this kind of stupid shit is your strategy, please rethink your strategy, or think about leaving political activism entirely.
Even if you THINK our democracy is nearly dead – which it's not, but even if you think that – you don't use it as slogan. Winning elections is about marketing your side to less enthused folks who are vaguely on your side and need motivation to go out and vote for your side.
Who feels excited to get up off the couch and vote for the side that' yelling some variation of "we're all gonna die, we're doomed"? NO ONE. You're unwittingly telling them that all hope is lost anyway, so there's no point in bothering to vote. You're telling them to stay home.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 14,
Biden actually had a pretty good week. He got the media to focus on Sinema, ramping up the pressure on her going forward. The Supreme Court volunteered to take the blame for any further COVID problems. And Trump’s legal troubles are set to climax during the midterms.
The media’s narrative about Biden having a “bad week” is based on false representations of his approval rating, the false claim that voting rights legislation is dead, the false notion that this Supreme Court ruling somehow hurts him, and nonsense about a Trump comeback.
It’s more important than ever that you all understand why the media makes up these lies: RATINGS. It’s not partisanship, it’s not personal, it’s not anything but RATINGS. Until you understand this fact, you’ll be confused by every single thing the media does.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(