312
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 59 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago

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:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news/tlaib-slams-nessel-for-targeting-pro-palestinian-students-at-u-m-a-dangerous-precedent-37343930

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:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news/fact-check-tlaib-did-not-say-nessel-charged-pro-palestinian-protesters-because-shes-jewish-37427661

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

🤡 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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

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.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
312 points (97.0% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3325 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS