It seems not all cases of a president swearing at a reporter are created equal.
When Trump used an expletive about journalist Chuck Todd, it was a crisis.
When Biden did the same thing to Peter Doocy? Well, let me know if you can spot a different attitude.⤵️
First, some context. Back in 2018, then-President Trump called Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press, a “son of a bitch” at a rally. The MSM was apoplectic.
Yesterday, Biden used the same term in response to a question from Fox’s Peter Doocy during a presser. This time, no outrage.
Back when Todd was on the receiving end of an insult, Politico wrote a piece titled “When the president of the United States calls you a ‘son of a bitch’” but when Biden does the same he’s just making “plain his opinion” about a reporter.
Not to be outdone, @CNN got out ahead of the comparison, jumping in to play PR for the Biden White House in response to the outburst.
I’m guessing a “How Peter Doocy responded to President Biden’s vulgar insult” piece isn’t on the way.
I know that plenty of others have dunked on @brianstelter for suggesting Trump’s quip would “expose journalists to threats and intimidation” but ICYMI Stelter then went on to suggest the hubbub this time was because people are…deprived of political authenticity.
She has me blocked but it wouldn’t be a thread if it didn’t point out that @joyannreid is entirely full of it.
From deep concern about Trump’s use of an expletive and attacks on the media to Biden winning Twitter for the same behavior.
Speaking of media figures who don’t always act in good faith, it doesn’t appear that we’re getting another #stayclassy call out from @atrupar
With Todd, outlets like @HuffPost practically tripped over themselves to quote the victim about the terrible message that it sent to kids that the President would swear in public.
But now, the hand waving is about Biden calling Doocy - I kid you not - “a not so nice name”
We saw the same thing out of @NYMag. When it was Todd, we got a morality play about Trump and children.
But when the Bad Orange Man is no longer the offender? Well, it’s just “a level of candor [Biden] probably should’ve reserved for the Oval Office.”
And once more, this time from @TheWrap: when it’s Trump, it’s Chuck Todd on to bemoan how Trump’s words are a “challenge to all parents.”
Odd how we don’t see that type of hand-wringing when the vulgarity comes from Biden.
Beyond the media, we’ve seen plenty of folks treat these very similar situations radically differently.
Needless to say, that goes double for @WHCOS@RonaldKlain, who you may recall once suggested that perhaps Rep Waters would have a hearing about Trump’s language, or something.
Look. I get it. The president swearing at a reporter is far from the biggest news these days.
But it isn’t lost on millions of Americans that so many people in and around the media are putting their fingers on the scale when it comes to reporting on the President.
I get that this whole situation is silly, and so I’m not gonna wax poetic about it any more.
But it’s worth reminding folks about the sort of naked hypocrisy that many in the media have grown comfortable with on issues both large and small.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
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”).