Thread by @DrewHolden360

🧵Thread🧵

The coverage of the anti-ICE riots in LA is perhaps the clearest example of advocacy “journalism” in Trump’s second term.

Reading the reporting, you would never know the most significant fact: the American people support Trump’s deportations.

Follow along ⤵️

First, the facts about the riots.

You’ve seen the burning cars, looting & clashes between police & protestors.

Demonstrators blocked the freeway, attacked ICE agents, all in an effort to prevent the deportations of illegal aliens. Trump deployed troops to allow ICE to operate.

As @MarkHalperin and @seanspicer discussed, the situation in LA is so tranquil that the mayor has instituted a curfew for the city.

https://twitter.com/2waytvapp/status/1932662337367932994

And in case you were wondering why protection is needed, watch this harrowing video from inside an ICE vehicle, from @BillMelugin_

https://twitter.com/billmelugin_/status/1931480398824890496

Rather than recognize the bedlam taking place in defiance of what the American people voted for, the media leapt to lionize the protests.

@nytimes waxed poetic about how protestors were “reposting messages of solidarity with victims of immigration enforcement raids.”

Perhaps no story captures the press fiction more vividly than this one from @washingtonpost.

The headline describes how “Angelenos defend their city” from Trump’s ‘war’ on them.

Unmentioned is that the city’s efforts to violate federal law is why it is in the “crosshairs.”

Just look at this other @washingtonpost headline.

As if every protest is an Edmund Pettus Bridge redux.

At @NBCNews, we were told of a growing “national movement” with protests popping up nationwide (they even have a map).

It reads like a press release for the protesters.

Omitted in so many of these stories—and certainly absent from all the headlines—is what the American people actually want concerning immigration policy.

Even amid the controversy, Americans still support deportations — Trump’s main electoral pitch.

Polling from a week ago ⤵️

An @AP piece perfectly captures it. How can you ask whether the American people “will stand by” Trump’s deportations without mentioning that they’ve said that they do?

There’s more ink dedicated to Jan 6th than what Americans want for immigration policy.

How is this journalism?

We saw a similar sleight of hand from @washingtonpost, who claimed it was “Trump allies” working “to convince Americans that the issue of undocumented immigration demands aggressive action.”

The polling makes clear that Americans are *already convinced* of this need.

That fact also appeared lost at @USATODAY.

The issue isn’t whether or not a 30 year old protestor, the graffiti left behind, or Democratic electeds think Trump’s response is “overblown.”

It’s whether or not Americans want to see Trump’s deportations enacted.

And the deceptive reporting didn’t end there.

The “mostly peaceful” descriptor of facially not peaceful protests, so common in 2020, made a return.

Just a few examples from @CBSNews, @USATODAY, @nytimes (“largely”), and an “overwhelmingly peaceful” from @KamalaHarris.

Right.

The new term, courtesy of another @nytimes piece, is “muted protests.”

How much vandalism do you need for a protest to not be “muted”? H/t @SteveGuest

But where the coverage really bends to the preposterous is in the suggestion that this is our latest descent into authoritarianism — a talking point of Gov. Newsom and the Left.

Supporting federal efforts to remove people here illegally doesn’t smack of dictatorship to me, @CNN.

There was more from @CNN — this all was “a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society.”

These aren’t opinion pieces, mind you, but reported ones. They weren’t alone.

Or take this one from @CNN, which relied on “experts” to make the case that Trump’s move was “dangerous.”

The “experts” are mostly just one CNN talking head, a former Obama DHS appointee, who objected to Trump’s move.

“Experts say” journalism at its finest.

At @nytimes, we got comparisons to the famously democratic Mozambique, and the assertion that such moves — experts, here again, assured us — can be “openings for authoritarians to erode democratic checks.”

Remember @BuzzFeed?

Simply because a governor gives a spicy statement doesn’t mean it should be your headline, @nytimes, @USATODAY, @thedailybeast, @newrepublic

If history is any guide, it’s unlikely the American people agree with the media on the “authoritarian” suggestion.

You may remember in 2020, when @TomCottonAR suggested the national guard be deployed amid rioting in DC, Americans agreed—even if the press objected.

All the press needs to do is cover the facts. That’s their job. Report what’s happening.

The editorializing in support of a political movement, from the supposedly neutral ‘defenders of democracy,’ doesn’t serve that.

And if they media is going to use supposed public opposition as a cudgel against a policy, they should at least mention that they public has repeatedly said they stand behind the policy, as they do on deportations.

For more on the “mostly peaceful” nonsense watch this supercut from @tomselliott

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1932145609919832262

@tomselliott If the media hopes to ever regain the trust of the American people — a score on which they aren’t doing well — they need to stop acting like advocates, and start behaving like journalists.