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
With the news that Trump freed the hostages and brokered an Israel/Hamas ceasefire, I thought it would be a good time to check in on the folks who compared the president to Hitler over the last few years, for reasons that I hope are obvious to you.
Remember? ⤵️
You may think the “Trump is literally Hitler” phrase is just a silly joke.
But for years, media outlets and left-wing voices on the internet have insisted that, no, really, Trump is just like Hitler.
Few have done so with as much gusto as @CNN.
Back in 2016, @CNN alleged that Trump rallies were just like Hitler rallies because…Trump had attendees raise their right hands.
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.