What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.
Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️ freebeacon.com/media/watch-su…
Here’s a link to the video which is incredible. Lot of media hosts and talking heads were convinced Trump was toast. (H/t @thaleigha_ for making this gem).
The “experts” said so!
Print reporting read the same way.
@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.
Why, then, did the 3 liberal justices also side against Colorado?
@washingtonpost repeated that “legally sound” narrative in a headline. Their “experts” also said “there’s a strong legal case” supporting Colorado.
If it’s so strong, why did a liberal Biden appointee reject it, exactly?
My favorite might be @ABC, who cited “experts” to claim both that Colorado was right to kick Trump off, and that Trump and co were wrong to object to it.
Interesting how these “experts” can reliably voice a uniform perspective when it suits a media narrative.
@CNN’s headline captures the liberal wishcasting perfectly. They swapped “scholars” in for experts.
There were some wild headlines on this one. @politico quoted an “expert” to say the case wasn’t just strong, but “unassailable”(!)
What happened to that?
It’s clear, the “experts” that @Salon rounded up said. Trump was already disqualified.
This one from @voxdotcom and @imillhiser just cracks me up.
Just brutal side by side. Was it a “fraught debate”? Or was it a foregone conclusion? Seems it can’t be both.
It’s in the video but this @MSNBC round table featuring @ElieNYC sounds even more deranged in the hindsight of the ruling.
The case was a “slam dunk” according to MSNBC and their resident “experts”
And of course, Twitter’s resident legal-expert-if-the-partisan-narrative-fits @tribelaw tweeted about it too.
But fear not, liberal media believers. As @AP assured readers, Trump’s problems are only just beginning.
I’m sure the legal “experts” think so.
• • •
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.