Thread by @SteveKrak

Here's a representative example of the terrible media coverage surrounding the Paul Pelosi attack:

CNN's John Miller begins to describe the 9-1-1 call as "there's this person in my house" then yadda yaddas with "so on and so forth" - but Miller never heard the call himself. 1/

CNN's Miller says "you can barely hear him because he sounds like he's whispering," then sneaks in the truth "...according to people who have heard the conversation."

He's describing a tone of voice and a phone call... that he's never actually heard. 2/

There's the "so on and so forth" aspect of his report. What did he not include? We know the officers describe Pelosi as identifying the attacker's first name and describing him as a "friend."

By the time he references the officers, he ignores the question of who let them in. 3/

He says the officers had "not a lot of detail that makes sense" from Pelosi's call. Well what sort of details did they have? Of course, Miller ignores it so the CNN audience doesn't receive the info either.

Instead, the report shifts to the attackers social media posts. 4/

CNN's Miller describe the posts as "anti-vax, anti-January 6 committee, anti-everything, anti-Semitism" (naturally).

But he also reports the Facebook page posts ended in March - long before the January 6 committee even started. 5/

Paul Pelosi was attacked, and that's awful.

But the seemingly active disinterest by the press in digging into the bizarre circumstances of this story - and the immediate attempts to make this about right-wing violence - is obvious and telling. The audience deserves better. 6/