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
The Fauci diary is damning on so many scores, but the indictment of legacy media for acting as Fauci’s PR team strikes me as one of the worst.
Every time Fauci was caught on COVID’s origins, he ran to his loyal lapdogs in legacy media to defend him.
Follow along ⤵️
To start, here’s Fauci, privately confessing his origin theory of COVID had been debunked in January 2020.
But Fauci, seemingly, didn’t want people thinking that COVID could’ve come from a lab in Wuhan, China.
So he turned to the legacy media to claim the science was settled.
Concerns about a potential lab leak origin started to bubble up in May 2020.
The doctor went to @NatGeo to explain that there was “no scientific evidence” that COVID came from a lab…despite telling his diary he “knew this was a possibility” in January 2020.
In case you missed it, I’ve been working on a series called “A COVID Autopsy” for the last couple of months, revisiting what the legacy media (and their frequently quoted “experts”) got wrong during the pandemic.
As you can imagine, there’s a lot. I started writing this years ago, got sidetracked by some life events (getting married, getting cancer, beating cancer, starting a new job) but finally finished it. I’ve linked to all six parts published at my newsletter (link to it is in my bio) in the thread below.
If you’re interested in how I think the response to COVID broke America, I hope you’ll give it a read, and share (with me in the comments, with others as you see fit) what you think.
Do you remember the start of COVID? Do you remember what the legacy media said back then, about the virus being no worse than the flu, and that masks didn’t work?
Do you remember the lockdown protests? Before protesting for “social justice” got a pass, the legacy press suggested protesting should cause the forfeit of health care.
A quick side by side of things legacy media outlets will describe as Nazi-adjacent when they’re about Trump vs. how these outlets talk about Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo, which an ex-gf of his confirmed to the NYT was deliberate.
Look ⤵️
Trump’s MSG rally? Nazi-related for @nytimes.
NYT, who broke the story that Platner told an ex-gf he had a Nazi tattoo, about his Nazi tattoo? Not Nazi. Just “new reporting…about his vulnerabilities.”
(It is funny to me that so many of the photos in pieces about Platner for NYT show him holding up his arm in a way that the paper would surely tie to the Nazis if, say, @elonmusk had done it)
When I saw the news that the Southern Poverty Law Center funded the hate groups like the KKK & Unite the Right they relied on to claim that white supremacy, inspired by Trump, was on the rise, I just knew the legacy media helped make it possible.
Boy was I right ⤵️
First, what happened.
A federal grand jury charged the SPLC with fraud for using donations to pay hate groups like the KKK millions of dollars, fomenting their activity in the lead up to the Unite the Right rally and after to drive more donations to SPLC.
You may remember how legacy media ran with the (contrived) claim after Unite the Right that Trump was spurring white supremacy.
The @nytimes wrote of the ~500 protestors whose transit was partially covered by SPLC: “Far-Right Groups Surge Into National View in Charlottesville.”
I know it’s been a few days, but the entire legacy media ran with the claim that Don Lemon was arrested for doing journalism, when he was actually indicted because a grand jury found he violated worshippers’ freedom of expression.
Quick live🧵thread🧵, starting with @nytimes. ⤵️
Same thing at @NBCNews.
Omitted from the headline is what the actual charges are: interfering with these churchgoers rights.
Predictably, @CNN has gone to bat for Lemon.
What’s at issue isn’t “reporting” of a “protest,” and claiming to the contrary is pretty obviously misleading.