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
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”).