In the last three days, CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash have performed a masterclass in journalistic malpractice — better described in this case as “lying.”
Both anchors devoted concerted airtime to accusing Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., of antisemitism based on a comment they attributed to the Palestinian American member of Congress — a comment she never came close to making.
Anyone watching CNN’s “State of the Union” with Tapper on Sunday, or “Inside Politics” with Dana Bash on Monday, would have heard that Tlaib questioned Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s ability to fairly do her job because Nessel is Jewish. Little matter to the primetime journalists that Tlaib’s recent criticism of Nessel did not in any way mention or refer to the attorney general’s Jewish faith or identity.
CNN is not the CNN of the 00s or even 10s. They are actively courting the fox news demographic.
Even before, they had an axe to grind with progressives.
That’s because they’ve been owned and operated by the plutocracy since inception.
They’re doing the same thing they did for the war in Iraq. Beating the drum for the military industrial complex and smearing anyone who stands against it. We’re just slightly better at recognizing it today.
More specifically, they’re targeting the 60+ demographic, who are the only people that still watch cable news.
If anyone wants to actually read this: https://web.archive.org/web/20240924204019/https://theintercept.com/2024/09/24/cnn-rashida-tlaib-dana-nessel-antisemitism/
TLDR: She implied the AG’s opinion to go after Palestinian protesters and not other protesters indicated a bias, which it certainly seems that way. The AG then says that calling this out is anti-semetic, as they always do. They can’t defend their actions, so they instead call into question the integrity of the other party.
The problem is that immediately following her quote saying it indicated bias (which it does), either the author of the interview or their editor inserted a line:
This bit:
"“We’ve had the right to dissent, the right to protest,” Tlaib says. “We’ve done it for climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs. But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”
Nessel is the first Jewish person to be elected Attorney General of Michigan."
So it wasn’t Tlaib saying the religion of the AG was an issue, Tlaib stated it points to “possible biases” in the AGs office, the author of the article, or perhaps their editor, inserted the line perhaps to clarify which bias Tlaib was talking about.
Factcheck article from the same source here endorsing that idea:
You keep saying ‘clarifying what she meant’ everywhere. I just don’t get where you get that that’s what she meant. She just said she sees a bias against pro-Palestinian protesters. That’s not implying the bias has anything to do with Judaism at all.
There’s no other reason for the author (or editor, it’s unclear who did it), to immediately follow this direct quote:
“that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”
With this additional detail:
“Nessel is the first Jewish person to be elected Attorney General of Michigan.”
It’s clear the author/editor is trying to make that connection even if Tlaib did not.
🤡 behavior: replying to “They can’t defend their actions, so they instead call into question the integrity of the other party.” then proceeding to attack the writer of the article.
Oh, I think the author of the article is clearly to blame as they followed up with the Fact Check article calling out the problems inherent with the first one without mentioning they, themselves, were the author of the first article.
The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.
And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this ‘clarification’ - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.
I just read an article they published where they lied about what Walz said and then proved it wasn’t true.
Cheese and rice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Bash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Tapper
Because I know you were wondering.
Dana Bash the nepo baby?
Oooh. Smell that? sniff sniff
There’s a defamation storm ah brewin’, son.
Diet fox news the last few years.
Oho, I see the problem. See the interview here:
This bit:
"“We’ve had the right to dissent, the right to protest,” Tlaib says. “We’ve done it for climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs. But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”
Nessel is the first Jewish person to be elected Attorney General of Michigan."
So it wasn’t Tlaib saying the religion of the AG was an issue, Tlaib stated it points to “possible biases” in the AGs office, the author of the article, or perhaps their editor, inserted the line perhaps to clarify which bias Tlaib was talking about.
Factcheck article from the same source here endorsing that idea:
If Tapper and Bash’s true sliminess was visible to the naked eye https://youtu.be/oG_-5AzdDZE
Well that was an experience. Thank you for the link.
This isn’t that strange, politicians are often accused of contextual bigotry. It’s more often applied to the right (because it’s more often to be likely).
The Intercept - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Intercept:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/24/cnn-rashida-tlaib-dana-nessel-antisemitism/
