The media are already hard at work to mislead about VP Kamala Harris.
The latest is an effort to memoryhole Harris’s role leading Biden’s disastrous immigration policy as “border czar.”
Who’s up for some side-by-sides, lest we forget? ⤵️
There’s no better place to start than with @axios, who made waves today when they claimed that Harris was never the “border czar.”
The problem?
Axios had called her exactly that back in 2021.
They added a truly Orwellian editors note after the backlash, claiming that they had misreported initially.
Really.
Oh and this headline from @axios.
“Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis”
How can @axios believe both of these things?
I feel like I’m losing my mind.
But it wasn’t just Axios.
One of my favorite was @nytimes, who tried to explain why Republicans were “misleading” in tying Harris to Biden’s immigration policies.
In 2021, they called Harris “the face of President Biden’s plan to bolster the region and deter migration”
I mean, @nytimes even said the old “border czar” stepped down because Harris’s new “role as one of the administration’s top border officials” had “eclipsed” the position!
@USAToday “fact checked” the claim that Harris was “in charge” on immigration despite a previous “fact check” where they said that Biden had tapped Harris to “lead a federal effort to deter migrants.”
@USAToday also said that “Harris will lead U.S. efforts to stem migration.”
Hello?!
I feel like whatever little is holding me to this temporal plane is fraying.
@CNN should probably get their talking points in order.
Particularly rich is this from @politico, who claimed tying Harris to the border was misleading despite a headline from 2021 that called her “the point person on immigration issues amid border surge.”
To be clear: The idea that Harris was in charge on the border isn’t some figment of your imagination.
Look at these headlines from 2021. The facts were so damning that CNN reported that Harris was trying to distance herself from the mess at the border.
Now why would that be?
But, no, that hasn’t stopped outlets from pretending that Harris’s role had nothing to do with the border and immigration.
Here’s @CBSNews
@PolitiFact on another planet as usual.
@VOANews continues to disappoint me after I once went to the mat to defend them.
“Experts”!
@MotherJones called it a “myth” that Harris was tasked with doing what Biden told her to do.
Methinks it isn’t Republicans who aren’t interested in the “facts” here, @voxdotcom
Look I’m not waiting on @TIME to be honest, but cmon guys.
What the coverage quite deliberately elides is that Harris was, unequivocally, tasked with leading Biden’s immigration policy to combat the surge at the border.
Biden’s own remarks say so.
Whether she accepted the title of “border czar” is totally irrelevant.
But get used to this. I suspect the media’s efforts to paper over VP Harris’s shortcomings—in office and otherwise—are only just beginning.
I’m sure I’ll be covering the topic frequently at my newsletter, @Holden_Court.
@Holden_Court If you’d like to support the beer fund that gives me the mental and emotional fortitude to do these threads as yeoman’s work, I’ve added a tip jar to my newsletter: paypal.com/donate/?busine…
@Holden_Court Sometimes what can be is, in fact, burdened by what has been.
@Holden_Court The press is still going. @ddale8 is the latest to join the circus. (H/t @CurtisHouck)
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.
I know it seems silly, but the media meltdown about Trump working at a McDonald’s is clarifying about why trust in the press has cratered.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit some of the most deranged takes. ⤵️
The press’s response to Trump deciding to troll Harris for her unsupported claims that she worked at McDonald’s by working at the chain himself sent the media into a tizzy.
Here’s @CNN, suddenly apologetic about a corporation in the political limelight.
My favorite take came from @nytimes, who appeared outraged that…Trump didn’t wear a hairnet.
The media is already trying to memory-hole the (first) attempted assassination of former President Trump.
I suspect many of you have felt it happening, but I walked through the details for The Spectator, and wanted to share some of them here.
Follow along ⤵️
First, I just want to level-set to make sure I’m not crazy.
Someone tried to kill the former POTUS, who, according to a variety of polls, is the odds-on favorite to return to that office. Tons of details didn’t make sense.
Seems like the press story of the year, right?
Well…
So far, the press doesn’t seem to think so.
It started as soon as the shots rang out. Do you remember how bad & unhelpful the headlines were?
I’ve got screenshots. @USATODAY @NBCNews (“popping noises”) @CNN (“injured in incident”) @latimes (“loud noises want through the crowd”)