Remember this sentence the next time there’s a MAJOR BREAKING STORY:
American political journalists consistently explain the meaning of events before they come close to understanding what happened.
There’s been a break-in at the Katie Hobbs campaign office, this is just like Watergate, it’s because of far-right extremist rhet— oh, wait, it’s some rando wandering around breaking into offices all over the area.
There’s been a break-in at the Pelosi residence, it’s the rising tide of extremist violence driven by far-right extremist rhet— wait, in his underwear?
American political journalists consistently explain the meaning of events before they come close to understanding what happened.
1.) Here’s what it means!!!!!
2.) (Much later) Here’s what happened.
And 2 usually disproves or undermines 1.
American political journalists consistently explain the meaning of events before they come close to understanding what happened. I’m so committed to saying this over and over again that I may climb up on the roof with a megaphone.
It’s a really stupid performance.
They should work on the “what happened” part a lot more.
The goal is to get the right wing violence narrative out there before the truth can become known. It will stick with a certain percentage long after the truth comes out.
"They should work on the “what happened” part a lot more."
Instead of putting it on the back page a week later...