https://twitter.com/winningatmylife/status/788882933054451712
You should be reading @mkhammer's timeline right now.
— Robert (@TheCheekyTaurus) October 19, 2016
If you’re among those wondering why it feels like James O’Keefe’s undercover videos exposing Democratic operatives haven’t been given the same kind of media attention — or credence — that the 2005 Trump tape has received, you’re not alone. With few exceptions, the media have shown a glaring double standard when it comes to opposition research, showing clear favor for liberal narratives.
Mary Katharine Ham has some things to say about that, and tonight, she shared them in a tweetstorm/thought exercise:
Let's chat about media bias for a quick tweetstorm. It's a real thing, whether you think it's election-changing or no.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
“Access H’wood” vid coverage vs @JamesOKeefeIII vid coverage is a perfect example, even w/o claiming a giant, perfect conspiracy.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Stick w me, libs & cons. There've been 2 overarching media narratives on Trump in this campaign. 1. Trump's attitude toward women not great.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
2. That this campaign is nastier, teetering on violent outbreak in a way others haven't, & Trump is at very least encouraging it.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Much of said narratives come from Trump supporting them w words & deeds, just as Hillary supports her untrustworthy narrative w hers.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
But some of it also comes from media failure to publicize countervailing evidence. Enter two October videos.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
One confirms a negative narrative—"Access H'wood— about Trump. It's a problem of his own making, for which he should take responsibility.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
But let’s talk about follow-up. I dunno # of reporters on duty looking for ppl to corroborate what AH video admission suggested had happened
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
But it’s a lot. Perhaps as many as were in Wasilla in 2008. There's a narrative, a smoking-gun video admission, & a massive, eager follow-up
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
OTOH, seemingly smoking-gun video admission about the violence narrative, w D operatives bragging on tape of shutting down a Chicago rally?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Almost no coverage until after 1 figure was fired, another resigned. How many reporters are assigned to corroborating what’s in this video?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Media argues @JamesOKeefeIII provenance of video an issue, but staff decisions suggest authenticity/admission of guilt.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Further, Wikileaks/hacks provenance aren't an issue. We manage to report Wikileaks w/o constant recitation of Assange’s motives & history.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
All of this happens, as reporters like to say, on a *backdrop* of A GOP OFFICE IN NC BEING FRIGGIN' FIREBOMBED, which was a *1-day* story.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
The O’Keefe video vile admission's pathetically dismissed as “barroom” talk just as Trump’s video was as “locker room talk."
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Do you honestly think video admission by pro-Trump super-PAC, R operatives bragging about shutting down a Clinton rally w fomented violence
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Say tape comes in OCT on heels of FIREBOMBING of a Dem office.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
We honestly don’t think that would get some serious coverage and aggressive, eager follow-up into exactly who is fomenting violence & how?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
We honestly don’t think there’d be exhaustive natl conversation about impending violent breakdown of society at hands of Trump’s campaign?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Of course there would. There might be as many reporters on it as in Wasilla in '08.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
With caveat catching a candidate on tape is more splashy than operatives, these videos are analogous in many ways & both newsworthy.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
There doesn’t have to be a perfect conspiracy for there to be bias. Just energy directed toward some video admissions & not others.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
Maybe I’m wrong. If you’re assigned to investigating what's on O’Keefe tapes, lemme know. Maybe there are lots of you.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
It sure looks like the most important difference between these two things is 1 vid confirms an anti-Trump narrative & one rebuts it.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
This happens a lot when it comes to the violence narrative about conservatives, in particular (see Tucson). And, that's media bias. See ya!
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
But she still had a little more to say:
That's a pretty big caveat, you must admit.
— Mike Trautmann (@Trautguy) October 19, 2016
I really, honestly don't think it would make a diff if other way around. R operatives caught on tape admitting fomenting violence = HUGE. https://t.co/shdH5owOCl
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
With the caveat that these things are very different, they're almost identical
— takethepith (@takethepith) October 19, 2016
This is what honest engagement/covering bases gets you. OPERATIVES FOMENTING VIOLENCE AS A STRATEGY IS A BIG DEAL. Do you not agree? https://t.co/e6FzwtQzPD
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
.@takethepith @Trautguy Answer while imagining it's a pro-Trump Super PAC against Dems. Please, indulge this exercise. Is it newsworthy?
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
One would think so.
If you think I'm a Hillary shill or a Trump shill, just read whole tweetstorm or any and all of my hate tweets. Ha. You'll see I'm neither.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 19, 2016
What she is, however, is awesome — and on-target.
PREACH!
— bragg (@bragg) October 19, 2016
fantastic points!
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) October 19, 2016
Excellent tweetstorm from @mkhammer… https://t.co/lTKlRVZ4Hu
— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) October 19, 2016
like the analysis
— Steve Conti (@steveconti27) October 19, 2016
Only retweeted part of @mkhammer but read the whole thing, perfect example of what media bias is about
— George Templeton (@rodentpolitics) October 19, 2016
this was a really great read. Smart and worthy of further discussion.
— Kidz Bop C (@connormofosho) October 19, 2016
Great rant! We need more honest info coming from talking heads! Media is full of "spinners!"
— J. David Stuart ?? (@jdstuart) October 19, 2016
https://twitter.com/Doug_Beaver_63/status/788884100463534080