NYT says they’d have withheld anti Trump editorial Sunday if they could have. If the shooter wrote a manifesto citing Paul Krugman and Gail Collins maybe this would be a polite gesture but he was some rw crank, why is liberal media accepting premise they are somehow responsible?
There are plenty of psycho killers who cite the NYT to justify their actions, but they are sending weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia not one off losers shooting at presidential candidates.
Noting that Trump is hellbent on destroying whatever traces of US democracy there is is pretty much the one thing liberal media was good for. Now their role is, what, full time Washington Generals? What’s the plan here? I guess they give Pulitzers for well written handwringing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There’s a lot of linguistic sleights of hand in media discourse but none more sinister—and successful—than “two state solution.” The gap between what the avg listener imagines this means vs what pundits and lawmakers actually mean is lightyears apart. Not remotely the same thing.
When the average US pundit or lawmaker says they support a “Palestinian state” ask them to define it. What they envision is a completely demilitarized series of Bantustans with no freedom of movement or commerce or unilateral FP, entirely under US-Israeli security architecture
This is not a “state” in any meaningful sense, it is a demand of capitulation and permanent third class status—at best, and this is the liberal position! The idea of genuine independence (even ignoring right of return or anything involving justice) is seen as unthinkable.
My contribution to the “we still have to vote for Biden discourse” is this: I think the popular debate suffers from a flawed premise that this is some abstract trolly problem without political context. 🧵
That Trump “would be worse” is a reasonable position in the abstract ofc but it’s secondary to the CONTEXT of the debate which everyone keeps avoiding but I think it’s the far more interesting and urgent question. What function does the specter of massive vote withholding have?
6 months before the election in Q media influencers and progressive politicians pledging their partisan fidelity serves no functional purpose other than undermining the SINGLE point of leverage powerless angry anti-genocide voters have, which is Team Biden’s fear of losing in Nov
In 2002 Applebaum explicitly argued in favor of killing Palestinian journalists for the crime of making Israel look bad. If she’s going to opine on media and authoritarianism, can any of these high status media commentators ask her if she still believes this? I’d be good to know!
All of these middlebrow “anti authoritarianism” experts make fairly glaring exception for Palestinians and Palestinians lives and I’d like to try and square this circle thanks
Truly the most evil and misleading thing Leonhardt has written and this is saying something. No mention of deaths caused by disease, birth complications or starvation. Also ignores limits of Gaza officials’ count since every hospital, and thus their capacity, has been destroyed
Leonhardt is a craven partisan hatchet man and the genocide-lite narrative is the only one the White House can plausibly try and push and here he is carrying out his disagreeable task. Absolutely shameful, intellectually and morally dishonest
Coincidentally episode on Leonhardt and his bullshit “data driven” schtick dropping Wednesday
No dipshit, the idea isn’t “US bad” the idea is pushing for a ceasefire is a much more efficient and humane way to deescalate rather than bombing, yet again, the poorest country in MENA to defend Israel’s inalienable right to turn Gaza into an even greater death zone
Yes they have, it’s called reining in Israel’s unchecked destruction of Gaza which is clearly and quite explicitly the origin of Houthi attacks which do not exist without a geopolitical context
Reminder that Jeremiah Johnson’s employer PPI is an astroturf shop funded by Exxonmobil, big tobacco, Walmart, and Amazon meant to make boilerplate rightwing politics seem cool and hip
Among the findings in Ali’s research is the selective use of emotive terms to describe killing—something reserved almost exclusively for Israeli deaths. It’s a sort of reverse humanization, horror only goes in one direction. The killing of Palestinians is seen as sterile/clinical
Coincidentally the CBC was asked last week by @TheBreachMedia’s @emmapaling about their own selective use of emotive terms and the answer they gave… made no sense breachmedia.ca/cbc-palestinia…
This study shows the same asymmetry of emotive language in the BBC (left column is about Israeli deaths, the right column is in reference to Palestinian deaths)