Jake Tapper Amplified Rebekah Jones' Conspiracy Theories On His TV Show -- But He Refuses to Cover The Debunking of Her Claims On His Show, and Instead Merely... Retweets Charles Cooke's Report

Back when I used to permit this former Handgun Safety, Inc. spokesman to DM me, I would ask him why he wasn't covering stories that boosted Republicans or hit Democrats.

"I did cover it," he would sniff.

When I would inquire when and where he "covered" them, it would turn out he "covered" them by... giving the story a single retweet on Twitter.

Strange that man with his own TV show would claim he's "covering" a story not by featuring it on TV but by giving it a single retweet!

And how arrogant! Jake Tapper believes he "covers" a story by giving it a literal .3 second click on a website designed for teenagers.

He's had a long history of this, as many of us have been pointing out for years. (While his homoerotic-crush fanbois, mostly localized in the NeverTrump movement (especially localized at Hot Air), continue to promote and quote him.)

CNN anchor Jake Tapper has now gone three days without mentioning the latest political woes of Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo despite repeatedly acknowledging them on Twitter.

On Wednesday, The New York Times outlined damning details of the Cuomo administration's effort to deliberately block the release of data on COVID nursing home deaths, which the paper tied to the release of the governor's memoir "American Crisis." The book, which came out in October 2020, prematurely touted the Democrat's "leadership" during the early months of the pandemic.

After the story broke, Tapper, a hyperactive Twitter user, retweeted it to his more than three million followers but kept his CNN viewers in the dark.

"Hyperactive." That is the perfect word.

Well, he's deploying this same time-tested strategy to avoid reporting on the compete debunking of Rebekah Jones.

And apparently he feels no need to cover this on his TV show -- even though he previously pushed her conspiracy theories on his clownshow.

Her accusations are worthy of TV coverage, but the disproof of those claims is worthy only of a retweet.

Tapper retweeted the National Review piece last Thursday when it was shared by New York Times columnist Ben Smith to his 3 million Twitter followers.

...

However, while Tapper's Twitter persona appears sober about the conspiracies Jones alleged against DeSantis, he helped promote her narrative as recently as December while reporting on the so-called police "raid," declaring it the "national lead" story of the day.

"Rebekah Jones was fired in May for insubordination and refused to cover up just how bad the pandemic really was in Florida," Tapper said. "And now she claims the police raid was in retaliation of from the governor, Ron DeSantis."

The report that aired on "The Lead" pushed Jones' falsehood that police took devices that contained "evidence of corruption at the state level" and that DeSantis was using the authorities to "shut her up."

...

The anchor has yet to address or walk back his previous coverage of Jones.

I stress: He literally pulls this bullshit every single fucking day.

One further point I'd make: Not only does he refuse to give any actual coverage to stories that would upset his partisan Democrat viewers (as few as that may be), even his style of retweeting is designed to spread the story to as few people as possible.

Here's what I mean. If you "quote-tweeted" a story, which means linking it with some commentary like "Very important" or "Read the whole thing," then that counts as its own tweet. Every tweet that quote-tweets the story that way will appear in the timelines of anyone following those twitterers.

So if ten people you follow quote-tweet it, you could possibly see that story ten times in your feed.

Tapper doesn't do that with stories he doesn't like, and by "doesn't like," I mean "which hurt the Democrat Party he previously worked for."

For those stories he does a simple retweet, or a naked retweet - no commentary added.

How is that different than a quote tweet?

Well, the way Twitter handles naked tweets is like this: if ten people do a simple retweet of a story, it does not post the story ten times in a followers' account. It posts it only once, but then says "Retweeted by Jake Tapper, and This Asshole, and This Other Partisan Asshole." It posts the story once and just collects up the people who have retweeted it in a list.

Jake Tapper is, as the first article says, a "hyperactive" Twitter user. He is a "Very Online" person. He habitually searches for his name on twitter to make sure that no one is criticizing him.

He essentially lives on Twitter. I have told you the story before of him DMing me to argue with me about a criticism of CNN while his own fucking show was on. While he was playing "anchor" on his show.

(He was playing a report from a CNN reporter when he DM'd me; he multitasks away from his real job, which is tweeting on Twitter, to occasionally put in an appearance at his hobby, CNN.)

If this were a David Cronenberg movie, he'd have three pseudo-umbilicus cords running from his eye sockets and mouth up Jack Dorsey's skanky asshole.

I believe Jake Tapper understands the lack of impact and lack of "travel" that a simple retweet has.

And I believe that's why he limits his "coverage" (LOL) of stories that do not help his precious Democrat Party to simple retweets.

More at Twitchy, which notes that Rebekah Jones' "WITHOUT EVIDENCE" conspiracy theories weren't just popular with Jake Tapper, but with all of CNN's partisan propagandists and clowns.

CNN owes the debunking of their previous reporting of misinformation more than a mere retweet.

posted by Ace at 06:29 PM

| Access Comments