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.
No, really. They included it in the subtitle.
@NBCNews went with “pre-selected customers,” as if perhaps anyone believed Trump just slipped into the kitchen.
Why does the press need to attack everything Trump does with such gusto?
I mean, @MSNBC brought on an elected official to provide a real-time reaction to…Trump handing out McDonald’s french fries.
As others have pointed out, what Trump did was basically just the Iowa State Fair in miniature.
But to @RollingStone, it was a “bizarre attempt to troll” Trump’s opponent.
I don’t think regular people saw it as bizarre at all.
Going a step further, @CNBC said that Harris’s campaign “scoffs” at the “stunt.”
Take that, Trump! She’s scoffing!
Feast your eyes on this cope from @NYMag.
Again, no one is forcing them to cover this!!
“Surreal footage” @thedailybeast declared.
I think the media’s befuddlement about the wisdom of this says much more about them than Trump.
What would we do without these guys?
This @washingtonpost headline is just dripping with disdain — how dare Trump not address the minimum wage during his “stage-managed campaign stop”?
And that subtitle sentiment, that the problem with Harris’s baseless claim that she worked at McDonald’s isn’t the issue, just Trump’s claim she didn’t that supposedly lacks evidence, was all over the place. Here’s @nytimes @Forbes @latimes & @AP
Do they know how logic works?
You might think that such a silly story would quickly move from the headlines.
You’d be mistaken. On Day 2 of the McDonald’s Election, we got even more unhinged takes. Here’s @CNN, @nytimes, @qz and @MSNBC.
You’ve just gotta read the headlines.
@AP just covering itself in glory here.
Why did the public need this detail, @brianstelter? What does this add, on the eve of an election?
I don’t usually include internet randos these days but some of these takes were just too much to leave out.
Trump has broken the brains of @RonFilipkowski, @AaronParnas (“YIKES”), @Keith Olbermann (you knew that) and former thread favorite @SethAbramson.
I didn’t expect to say this, but I think the best analysis of this kerfuffle comes from…@cenkuygur.
Trump looks like a real person. The media look detached from real people.
But why? Why did the media feel compelled to spend so much ink trying to dunk on Trump over something so silly, so anodyne?
Didn’t they realize all it did was amplify what he was trying to do?
This all may seem like nonsense. And it is, in a sense.
But it’s also clarifying. The media’s inability to tolerate anything Trump says or does, and their rush to attack every example, puts their bias on display in a way that couldn’t be more obvious.
In this case it was something trivial.
In countless other cases, it was something trivial. Or something misleading.
What matters is the default response to a former POTUS, who may well be the next one, is head-spinning outrage.
How can that make quality news coverage?
It doesn’t. What it does make is outrage porn masquerading as media analysis.
When that becomes the dominant thread of media coverage when it comes to anything a former (and maybe future) president touches, as it has with Trump, it makes a mockery of the profession.
So to those who lament — as I do! — the loss of faith in the media, let me point you to the forces that have caused that erosion. @ChrisCillizza
And, I’ve gotta say, whoever’s idea it was to do this, bravo.
The fry cook cameo took Harris’s birthday (!!) and turned it into a multi-day media cycle of the press highlighting their bias and demeaning everyday Americans, while making Trump look, well, normal.
The media has to be better than this if they want to restore any semblance of trust.
The prospects of that don’t look good.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With the news that Trump freed the hostages and brokered an Israel/Hamas ceasefire, I thought it would be a good time to check in on the folks who compared the president to Hitler over the last few years, for reasons that I hope are obvious to you.
Remember? ⤵️
You may think the “Trump is literally Hitler” phrase is just a silly joke.
But for years, media outlets and left-wing voices on the internet have insisted that, no, really, Trump is just like Hitler.
Few have done so with as much gusto as @CNN.
Back in 2016, @CNN alleged that Trump rallies were just like Hitler rallies because…Trump had attendees raise their right hands.
A newly declassified CIA report on Joe Biden & Ukraine blows the doors off claims from the legacy press, in the lead up to the 2020 election and beyond, that Trump was pushing a “conspiracy theory” about Biden’s corruption.
Remember how the press buried Burisma? ⤵️
First, the facts. The report unearths how Biden blocked the release of intel from Ukrainian sources validating allegations of bribery tied to Biden’s diplomatic push to oust a prosecutor there in 2015, tied to his son Hunter’s work with the gas company Burisma.
You may remember this story because Biden’s having helped oust a prosecutor in a foreign country to allegedly protect his family’s corruption came up in the 2020 election.
To hear @ABC tell it, that was a “debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory.”
The media are melting down about former FBI director Jim Comey’s indictment, calling it Trump’s “retribution.”
But if prosecuting a political rival is such an outrage, why’d they cheer along when Biden went after Trump, Bannon & Navarro?
Some side-by-sides ⤵️
I want you to help me spot the difference in tone.
With Comey, @CNN put five — five! — reporters on the byline to declare the indictment was an “escalation” in “Trump’s effort to prosecute his political enemies.”
Where was that when Biden’s DOJ indicted Bannon? “A victory”
And @CNN wasn’t any better on Peter Navarro, another Trump aide indicted under Biden.
Rather than an “effort to prosecute…political enemies,” CNN quoted the prosecutor to tell the story.
Why is the claim of the government the framing of the piece under Biden? I have a guess.
The outrage over Kimmel’s canning is incredibly stupid, but it’s also enormously rich coming from the same media outlets who have cheered the government actually censoring people, particularly during COVID.
Let me know if you can spot the difference in tone? ⤵️
This @CNN headline made me think this story needed a thread.
Kimmel’s suspension is “straight from a European strongman’s playbook,” per @CNN’s @brianstelter.
When Biden cracked down on free speech during Covid, CNN hyped up the effort.
Few promoted the government’s actual attack on free speech more aggressively than the same @brianstelter now calling a comedian’s shelving evidence of autocracy, or something.
I know there’s a lot going on but we just had a media conspiracy implode that I think captures something important about the corporate press.
Did you hear about how Trump was allegedly going after John Bolton as retribution for his criticism?
Well…follow along ⤵️
We saw a week straight of media suggestions that Trump was abusing the powers of the state to deal out “retribution” to John Bolton following the news that the FBI (“Trump’s DOJ!” headlines rang out) raided his house.
We were in “unsettling” times, to hear @nytimes tell it.
The *Editorial Board* at @nytimes put out an even more dramatic statement, asking who Trump’s next payback victim after Bolton would be.
A single poll has bootstrapped a media narrative that DC residents are outraged by Trump’s takeover.
I poked around the cross tabs of the poll — of 600 or so of DC’s more comfortable residents — and I think it’s pretty suspect.
How come? Follow along: ⤵️
Let’s start with the poll. The @washingtonpost talked to 604 people, of whom 90% — 90%! — self-described as living in “very good” or “good” neighborhoods.
So, fine. 80% of people who like where they live in DC are upset.
But even beyond that, it’s worth asking whether this poll really captures DC’s opinion.
In the poll, only 31% describe crime as a “serious” or “very serious” problem in DC.
When @washingtonpost asked this same question in May, *50%* said it was a serious problem.