An explosive story from @NPR and @NinaTotenberg about supposed high drama around masking at the Supreme Court imploded today.
I want to take you through how misinformation like this gets mainstreamed by the corporate press and others.
Start here ⤵️
First, some background. @NPR reporter @NinaTotenberg reported that tensions were high at SCOTUS, particularly because Justice Gorsuch had supposedly refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts to put on a mask to help protect Justice Sotomayor.
But then the story started unraveling. First Sotomayor and Gorsuch put out a statement disputing some aspects of the reporting/narrative.
Then, this afternoon, Chief Justice Roberts went on the record to say the masking story was bogus.
But before that denial, the original NPR story was quickly picked up across Twitter and other outlets. In particular, broadcast outlets gave the story plenty of airtime. Here we have the story recycled by both @CNBC and @MSNBC.
On his show list night, @chrislhayes repeated the now-debunked allegations verbatim, talking up how big this story was if it could leak from the air-tight chamber of SCOTUS.
Lots of their other hosts and talking heads joined in. Here’s @mehdirhasan and @KatiePhang promoting a (now-corrected, at least) tweet from @mjs_DC that got a lot of traction on the erroneous reporting.
And resident disinformation pusher @kylegriffin1 shared the story, too.
And she’s got me blocked but @joyannreid went full conspiracy in this case - suggesting that CJ Roberts orchestrated a fake denial, or something.
But it wasn’t just the broadcast voices. Tons of other outlets repeated this reporting - not confirming it with their own sources, mind you, just parroting the storyline back.
And, naturally, plenty of these folks immediately used this reporting - since refuted - as an opportunity to confirm their priors on Gorsuch, the Supreme Court & anyone who isn’t interested in forever masking. That included: @ElieNYC, @Travon, @clairecmc (sheesh) & @ananavarro
I have pointed this out before but once again: the name of @briantylercohen’s show is “No Lie” which is beginning to feel like some sort of Orwellian bad joke given the amount of misinformation he spreads. @NoLieWithBTC
We also heard from the very-online public health “experts” like @LeahNTorres and @gorskon
Is it any wonder that so many in the public have soured on the guidance of public health experts?
And of course the usual Twitter bad actors jumped into the fray. These folks were led, as ever, by @tribelaw, a few times.
He wasn’t alone there, though. There’s too many to include everyone but you had to figure The Lincoln Project jumped this one, so here’s @stuartpstevens. Plus @aravosis and, bleach my eyes, @GeorgeTakei.
I just hope that @BillKristol and @JVLast can see the irony of pushing disinformation as a result of Covid hysteria under the banner of a piece titled “Don’t Let COVID Bring Out the Worst in You”
I think folks get the picture here but just in case here’s: @margotroosevelt (LA Times), @ReignOfApril (black helicopters stuff), @chrisgeidner (“what we thought was up” is too on-the-nose for this wishcasting) & @sadmonsters (the cutting humor I’d expect from the Colbert team)
Many of these people and outlets, you’ll notice, have a professed concern with misinformation.
And yet here they are acting as conduits if not outright creators of politically motivated disinformation to smear their opponents.
And it bears repeating that these sorts of incidents provide a ton of ammunition for people (including people just acting in bad faith) to attack the media more broadly.
It blows my mind that folks aren’t just a little more careful, considering that.
From Russiagate to Covington Catholic and beyond, we see so many of these stories: they *feel* right to reporters/outlets, and so they get repeated, but then they prove to be false.
And confidence in the media erodes from under the feet of folks who’ll shrug this thing off.
But of course, this is the favored variety of misinformation. We won’t see retractions or apologies or Twitter warnings on this content.
And eventually, the cycle will repeat, and the collective faith in the media will grind down even lower.
Two important takeaways:
1) if a story perfectly confirms your priors, wait until it can be confirmed/authenticated before you spike the football, especially if you have a platform.
2) don’t trust unnamed sources, particularly when they confirm all of said priors.
And for those who have asked: I’ve turned on the tip feature on Twitter. These threads are a labor of love but you can throw me beer money (or crypto) on Twitter’s mobile app at this button here:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Biden’s pardoning of his son Hunter says an enormous amount about the president’s views of justice.
But it also says a lot about the willingness of the mainstream media—the nation’s noble fact checking corps—to repeat bogus claims that suit Democrats.
Remember? ⤵️
For starters, let’s revisit the coverage of how Biden wouldn’t do what he just did.
Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son, no way. He would trust our legal system.
The media repeated it at every turn, without a shred of incredulity.
Here’s @washingtonpost
Seemingly every outlet did the same. @CNN had a couple of my favorites.
Look at the lede in on this first one.
The media’s job isn’t to simply repeat what politicians tell them. Whatever happened to “defenders of our democracy” and all that?
The news that MSNBC may soon have a new owner (and that it might be a certain X power user) compelled me to finally open my “MSNBC conspiracy theories” screenshot folder and, woo boy, there are a lot.
If you’d like to revisit them, buckle up, and follow along. ⤵️
There’s nowhere better to start than with Russiagate.
Do you remember the promotion from @chrislhayes, @MalcolmNance, @maddow and others at @MSNBC that perhaps Donald Trump was a Russian agent?
I, for one, will not be forgetting.
But there was plenty of other insanity from the gang at MSNBC about Russiagate.
Here are just a couple.
The first seems apropos with Trump again picking a cabinet.
Whatever happened to Harris and Biden’s “strongest economy ever” that the media spent so much time hyping up in the lead up to the election?
I revisit the claims, and explain why they were off the mark about the economy all along, in my latest @AmerCompass.
Quick🧵thread🧵⤵️
It can be easy, in the wake of an election, to forget just how dominant a media narrative was.
One that’s already fading from view was how “great” the economy was, and why it would benefit Harris on Election Day. americancompass.org/its-still-the-…
As a refresher, check out this headline from @axios about the data.
@YahooFinance upgraded Biden’s economic grade to an A. That captures the press sentiment at the time quite well.
In recent days, the mainstream media has taken nakedly ridiculous claims about the tattoos of @PeteHegseth, Trump’s SecDef nominee, to spin up a story alleging he’s an extremist.
It’s an egregious example of politically driven “journalism.” I unpack why. ⤵️
The story really started with @AP, who ran an article claiming that two tattoos that @PeteHegseth has have ties to extremism, citing an extremely thin (and downright suspect) report.
They used that to label him a potential “insider threat” in their headline.
It wasn’t until 3 paragraphs in that a reader was told what that claim rested on: a tattoo of a Latin phrase. They’d go on to mention “concerns” about a cross tattoo as well.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.