CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
How The Pro-Trump Media Responds To A Crisis In Just 4 Steps
Stay quiet, blame and discredit, change the news cycle, and then close the loop. Seventeen hours in the fever swamp.
Posted on May 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.
Charlie Warzel
This week has posed a new test for the pro-Trump media — a loose affiliation of news organizations, trolls, and independent journalists — who fight the moment-to-moment battle to defend the president and rally his supporters as he reels among self-imposed crises.
The latest came in the form of a bombshell report from the Washington Post that President Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last week and, in doing so, may have jeopardized a source in the fight against ISIS.
The pro-Trump media operates as a mirror image of its mainstream counterpart with its own “alternative facts,” audience, and interpretation of truth. And perhaps never has this been clearer than in its response to Monday's news.
Below is a timeline and breakdown of how — in just 17 hours and 4 steps — the Upside Down media flipped the script on a particularly thorny news cycle.
Phase 1 - Quiet Period:
As the Washington Post scoop hit Twitter, the pro-Trump media's most active spaces — 4chan, Reddit, and Twitter — were unusually quiet while waiting to figure out how to respond to the story.
https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/864241478012481544
https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/864231652096126976
Phase 2: Blaming The Usual Suspects/Dismissal
It took about an hour or so for the first quick takes to appear. As is expected, they touched on familiar pro-Trump media talking points — reflexive plays to the base audience including:
Mainstream Media Malpractice Defense
https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/864235870643204097
Basically, an attempt to discredit the Washington Post and its reporting by suggesting that the decision to publish the sensitive information would tip the terrorist organizations and individuals involved.

The Washington Post story notes, however, that it did not publish sensitive details. "The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities," the story read.
Fake News Defense
https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/864247531039019008
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/864267907303428096
The Gateway Pundit, a far-right/pro-Trump outlet, also attempted to attack the Post's credibility, suggesting yesterday's report was the 4th false story from the paper in a week.

Hit Piece/Distraction Defense
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/864279595855622144
Gateway Pundit also chimed in — in a separate article — suggesting that the piece was part of a smear campaign.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/864268441976483841
Anonymous Sourcing Defense
https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/864275813344178176
Another staple of the pro-Trump media is to call into question the anonymous sources, such as the ones cited in the Washington Post article. The suggestion: if the sources won't attach their name to the claim, then they have nothing to lose — and thus their credibility is suspect.
It's important to note that anonymous sources are a staple of investigative journalism on highly sensitive stories. While the use of anonymous sources are a contentious issue — Margaret Sullivan, the former public editor of the New York Times, used her column to attempt to get the Washington Post to crack down on its use of anonymous sources — they are used by reporters to unearth deeply sensitive or classified information that would otherwise not come to light.
Also, Jack Posobiec has often cited sources without naming them during his reporting on Twitter.
But the pro-Trump tactic of questioning the anonymous sources plays well with those outside of the media. A March poll by Morning Consult revealed that "half of Americans think it is inappropriate for journalists to cite anonymous sources in their reporting, and many think reporters are simply making up those sources."
https://twitter.com/ZacAlleman/status/864282767483215872
Early in the evening, White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster, spoke to the press and declared the Post story “as reported, is false.”
In the statement — which did not expressly deny that Trump disclosed classified information to Russia — McMaster noted that, "the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known." And said that, "two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of state, remember it being the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn’t happen."
This quickly became a pro-Trump media talking point.