I think it’s safe to say that the coverage of the Democratic and Republican Conventions has been...different.

If you look really closely, you may be able to spot how.

At least at @nytimes, only one of them was breathlessly fact-checked. Guess which.

Thread

But that wasn’t the only coverage difference at @nytimes.

Same commentators. Slightly different tone, huh?

The coverage of the spouses was...different, too, @nytimes.

Spot the difference? @nytimes

They weren’t alone, of course. @CNN found one party’s convention more deserving of a critique.

If outlets wanted to regain a shred of credibility they would fire “news analysis” directly into the sun.

@MSNBC and @maddow bringing on Susan Rice to discuss the RNC live is so on brand it hurts.

These two tweets from @MSNBC were back to back.

The RNC hadn’t even happened yet!!

The way that particular voters have been highlighted hasn’t exactly been subtle at @washingtonpost.

Honestly nothing about this coverage (from @washingtonpost and beyond) has been subtle.

Again, we should take “news analysis” and launch it into orbit. It’s commentary masquerading as the news.

@ABC is upset that the **virtual** RNC is “mask-free” while putting up puff pieces for the Dems.

I mean cmon @ABC. At least fake it a little.

There’s plenty more. I’ll get to them eventually.

But cmon. You burn your own credibility to the ground when you don’t even pretend to try to call balls and strikes on these things.

Oh and I’m back by the way. Will do my best to get back to DMs soon.