Read on Twitter
ThreadToday we found out that the “Anonymous” “senior” Trump official (of @nytimes op-ed & book fame) was @MilesTaylorUSA, former staffer & current @CNN contributor (go figure).
I thought it was a good time to revisit all the hubbub. Some takes haven’t aged well.
First and foremost, no one has more egg on their face than @nytimes.
They made the - what appears now to be genuinely egregious - decision to run w/ the anonymous article despite it not actually being from a senior member of Trump’s cabinet, and then spun news cycles around it.
They made the - what appears now to be genuinely egregious - decision to run w/ the anonymous article despite it not actually being from a senior member of Trump’s cabinet, and then spun news cycles around it.
Although I will say, right behind them is @gtconway3d. He’s made it his personal cause it seems to defend the heroism of Anonymous, which seems a weird hill to die on.
But there were many people who fed into the rampant speculation we saw back in the early aughts of 2018.
Perhaps my personal favorite is the gossip mag coverage it got from @CNN.
Perhaps my personal favorite is the gossip mag coverage it got from @CNN.
In particular, @CillizzaCNN went all in.
Among the 13 people he speculated, none was less consequential than Fiona Hill. He had both VP Pence and the First Lady (??) on the list.
Right.
Among the 13 people he speculated, none was less consequential than Fiona Hill. He had both VP Pence and the First Lady (??) on the list.
Right.
@QuickTake kept a running tally like it was an office pool or something.
I know it can be hard to remember, but this was a multiple news cycle event.
I know it can be hard to remember, but this was a multiple news cycle event.
@Newsweek what...what are we doing here guys.
@washingtonpost did the same water cooler gossip schtick, bizarrely speculating about all the high level and consequential people who may have authored the piece.
I’m...not sure this one has held up well, @chrislhayes.
One of the other important take aways from the “Anonymous” reveal is that this news was never as consequential as many had framed it as.
Dueling perspectives from @TheAtlantic follow a similar pattern, guest starring @davidfrum
Dueling perspectives from @TheAtlantic follow a similar pattern, guest starring @davidfrum
Frequently wrong man on the internet @radiofreetom took a similar bent: we’re in a “dangerous political crisis” because of a disgruntled staffer’s op-ed.
What happened to @DanRather?
Obligatory @kurteichenwald mention.
You may‘ve forgotten the “invoke the 25th amendment” news cycle we had around this one. Here’s @MSNBC, @DickDurbin, @nytimes again and @YahooNews to refresh your recollection.
Perhaps it was a little hasty to call it “an uprising among senior staff” in retrospect, @kaitlancollins.
This perspective from @wcruz73 REALLY aged poorly. And really gets to the heart of all of this.
People believed it because they thought it was actually from a name they would know. It wasn’t.
People believed it because they thought it was actually from a name they would know. It wasn’t.
And of course there were the specific - in retrospect, ridiculous - guesses about who may have written the op-ed.
@AnnCoulter and others said it was Jared Kushner.
@AnnCoulter and others said it was Jared Kushner.
@billmaher alleged that it was John Kelly.
Swing and a miss from @lawrence.
Remember @OMAROSA? Her guess was Pence’s chief of staff.
There hasn’t been a wrong prediction in DC in generations that @BillKristol didn’t have a hand in.
Mattis was also the idea of one of the more insistent conspiracy theorists on this website, @Amy_Siskind
Some of the usual fan favorites made the cut. Welcome back to threadsville, @CheriJacobus
The lesson here is one that we’ve been forced to learn time and time again in the Trump era: don’t rush to act like the sky is falling without much evidence, and don’t trust people who tell you it’s falling when they get paid from your panic.
Both of those things happened here.
Both of those things happened here.
