A barbaric terrorist attack that killed over a thousand Israelis brought out the worst from the mainstream media. I want to walk you through some really terrible examples. @FreeBeacon
A lot of outlets essentially said that Israel had it coming.
That included @washingtonpost, who take victim blaming to the next level with this one. Just give it a read.
I asked this earlier this week but again: if you didn’t have the names on them, could you tell which is from @washingtonpost and which is from Hamas?
@NBCNews also seemed to run with Hamas talking points.
@NPR led off this conversation with a stirring defense of the terrorist’s decision to kill innocent people. See for yourself.
As the dead were still being counted, @nytimes rushed to explain how and why some Gazans see the barbarism as “justified”
@nytimes even had an inconceivable stealth edit on another piece. After calling the Hamas terrorists who gunned down innocent women and children “terrorists,” they changed the wording, as @greg_price11 pointed out
Then there were the individual journalists like @m7mdkurd who justified the violence, and others like @KarenAttiah who expressed sympathy for terrorism as a form of resistance. (H/t @megynkelly)
This isn’t the first time the media have produced slanted coverage about Israel. When Hamas’s rocket bombardment in 2021 led to an Israeli response, the @nytimes dedicated its front page to some of the victims, without including that Hamas had gotten them killed. (H/t @BA_Fogel)
And the rest of the press, led by @MSNBC and @NBCNews struck a similar note as we’re seeing today: that Israel is evil and deserves what it gets at the hands of terrorists.
H/T’s @theMRC and @NickFondacaro
@omriceren is still right about this one. @washingtonpost
Much has (rightly) been made about the horrible statements and sentiments around what’s happening in Israel - Democrats on the Hill, diversity activists who cheerlead terrorism, elite universities, etc. We can’t leave the press out of that discussion.
And it’ll only get worse.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
I feel like I’m losing my mind about the Biden autopen pardons.
The former president said he made every decision. His staff says that he didn’t actually make the final call on thousands of them.
We’re supposed to treat this as normal?
I try to unpack. ⤵️
This got new life from a Biden interview w/ @nytimes.
NYT leads by repeating Biden’s claim that he made the calls…burying the admissions that 1) he really didn’t & 2) where he allegedly did, the aids sending details to the autopen weren’t in the room when the call was made…
…instead, they relied on what senior staff had allegedly heard, which was then passed along.
The piece ends with the revelation that Biden’s then-chief of staff gave the final sign off.
Given what the former admin has lied about, why should we trust this reporting of events?
The coverage of the anti-ICE riots in LA is perhaps the clearest example of advocacy “journalism” in Trump’s second term.
Reading the reporting, you would never know the most significant fact: the American people support Trump’s deportations.
Follow along ⤵️
First, the facts about the riots.
You’ve seen the burning cars, looting & clashes between police & protestors.
Demonstrators blocked the freeway, attacked ICE agents, all in an effort to prevent the deportations of illegal aliens. Trump deployed troops to allow ICE to operate.
As @MarkHalperin and @seanspicer discussed, the situation in LA is so tranquil that the mayor has instituted a curfew for the city.
The new book “Original Sin” from Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson recounts the effort to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline ahead of the election. The authors point to many guilty parties.
The one glaring omission? Their colleagues in the corporate press. Follow along ⤵️
There are numerous dramatic reveals. The Biden team considered condoning him to a wheelchair? Maybe in his fog he forgot about the border?
But as I worked on a review for @commonplc, the one thought that I kept coming back to was that you can’t tell this story without the press.
Perhaps no one was more vital to the continued fiction that Biden had it together than the media.
Tapper and Thompson even highlight some of the telling moments.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis is a tragedy I know first-hand.
But our sympathy can’t silence questions about Biden’s cognitive decline, clarified just days ago by the Hur tape.
The media tried to bury the story then. They’re trying again now.
I’ve got the receipts. ⤵️
When the report first came out in 2024, outlets rushed to demean Hur, accusing him of serving as a Republican hatchet man.
Just look at this take from @USATODAY, who assembled sympathetic voices to make the case that Hur “crossed the line.” They found an expert to call it a “disgrace” and then featured the obviously unbiased Eric Holder to lead a section titled “Way too many gratuitous remarks.”
The audio makes clear that Hur, if anything, played down how alarming the claims were.
(If you haven’t listened to the Hur audio yet, you should.)