It doesn’t take a fully formed conspiracy for media bias to be a problem. Selective energy, outrage, and follow-up are plenty, especially in this tale of two October surprises, as told through the tweets of Mary Katharine Ham.
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
