Independent conservative journalist Jeryl Bier can’t help but be intrigued by the story of the left-wingers collectively known as Ruth Sent Us publishing information about where six Supreme Court Justices live. Bier also can’t help but be intrigued by the conspicuous lack of mainstream media coverage of this story.
As far as I can find, @daveweigel of @washingtonpost is the only reporter at a non-right-leaning/conservative publication to report on the liberal group Ruth Sent Us publishing a list of what are said to be the locations of the houses of 6 Supreme Court Justices.
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
Kudos to Weigel and the Washington Post here. Truly. Without them, news consumers who get their information exclusively from liberal mainstream outlets may very well not be aware that any of this has been going on.
Not that we’re ready to throw a party for WaPo just yet. The bar they’ve cleared is pretty close to the floor.
Fox News, Daily Mail, National Review, Washington Times, NY Post, etc. all have reported it. I see nothing else in WaPo other than in Weigel's Trailer; nothing at NYTimes, nothing by any of the networks. If anyone else finds something, let me know, I will correct.
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
(Bier would correct his tweet, by the way. And be very transparent about it. Because that’s what good journalists do.)
I found one story at CBS that reported the locations were published online, but did not name the group responsible (Ruth Sent Us).
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
“Ruth Sent Us.” It’s three words. Surely CBS had enough space in their article for just three little words.
It's not like reporters don't know about this. Peter Doocy asked @PressSec about it yesterday:https://t.co/c9SlgU7WR0
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
We heard it. The White House press corps heard it, too. But no one could be bothered to report on Ruth Sent Us?
I kinda feel like this is the kind of thing "media reporters" would be interested in. https://t.co/YDvQuLnACD
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
It does seem like something the journos would want to cover. Or should want to cover. Particularly since so many journos are so emotionally invested in the abortion debate, you know?
You must be new here.
— Madlaw (@madlaw1071) May 6, 2022
Why would you think that?
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 6, 2022
Maybe Jeryl Bier is just an optimist, OK?
Because I have undying faith in the goodness of humanity!
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 6, 2022
Oh you poor summer child.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 6, 2022
Hey, technically there’s still a chance that the media could do a 180 and suddenly decide that journalism — actual journalism — is important again and worth doing … yeah, maybe that chance is worse than the chance of every single person on the planet getting struck by lightning at the exact same time while also doing the Hokey Pokey in denim cutoffs, but dammit, there’s still a chance!
@brianstelter is on it, I'm sure.
— Mike 🙂 (@mikeflanny) May 6, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member