(1/X) I hate doing these, but I feel like I'm being baited to do so. A few days ago Maggie H did an interview where she complained criticism of her reporting, James Fallows answered back (mentioning this account) and Jon Chait and some Reason bro took a shot at Fallows for...
(2/X) praising this account. First things first...Jon Chait and some obscure Reason bro lecturing James Fallows about journalism is ludicrous. Fallows is a legend, a five-time National Magazine Award finalist. More on this later...
(3/X) But first, Maggie admits "The systems are just fundamentally - they were not built to deal with somebody who says things that are not true as often as he does or speaks as incoherently as he (Trump) often does." That's exactly the point of all the criticism...
(4/X) of her and the Times' coverage of Trump. It's not built for Trump. Trump is hold to lower standards. Let's just take a couple examples. The Times played a big role in forcing Biden out of the race (which has worked out great for Dems)...
(5/X) Two or three times a week, Trump does something that is more strongly indicative of dementia than anything Biden did during that debate. Is there any move to force him out?
(6/X) "The Times couldn't force Trump out beacuse it's mostly read by liberals," you say. Well, have there been many articles focusing on his obvious dementia or opinion pieces saying he has to step aside? No.
(7/X) Likewise, there has been coverage of the hacked Trump campaign emails. I agree it is better not to cover them. But there is no way they wouldn't be getting covered if they were emails from a Democratic campaign.
(8/X) I don't think anyone can dispute either of those two points: that there's been no coverage of Trump's dementia comparable to the discussion of Biden's age and that hacked Democratic campaign emails would be getting covered.
(9/X). That's a different standard and one that is markedly lower for Trump. It's that simple. It doesn't mean that the Times hasn't taught the public a lot about Trump. There have been a lot of revealing stories. But they are easier on Trump than on other candidates..
(10/X) That's how narcissistic sociopaths work. They get weak institutions to make special rules for them. What I find fascinating about the discussion of this obvious fact is that you have an in crowd (Times political journalists, ppl like Chait, large account Substackers),
(11/X) Who devote themselves to denying this obvious fact and those who assert its truth. It doesn't matter if the person asserting is a no name like or a legend like James Fallows or James Risen. Doesn't matter, they deserve scorn and derision.
(12/X) There are no serious arguments, just a lot of RESPECT MUH AUTHORITY and boiler-plate evidence-free assertions. Serious people know that Trump is getting tough coverage is the thrust of it.
(13/X) Again, it is so similar to my own dealings with the Trump-like figure in my department. The administration makes special rules for him, spends all of their time attacking the people trying to him in, and portrays themselves as the serious people in the room...
(14/X) Because how they be facilitators of harassment and abuse? They give their pronouns and vote Democratic, so come on, you can't be serious when you say they take the side of an abuser.
(15/X) And if you disagree, you're not serious, not just if you're a more or less regular faculty member like me but even if you're a Chaired recipient of a nearly Nobel-like prize (no Nobel in math) like one of my colleagues.
(16/X) And no facts or investigation can change any of it. The Times is tough on Trump because they are tough on Trump. Don't you get it, Resistance libtard?
This may be even more incoherent and typo-ridden than usual. I wrote it while monitoring my six-year-old's Minecraft video intake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
