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 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.
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.
🤡 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.