‘This is breathtaking’: @redsteeze busts WaPo’s Margaret Sullivan for white-knighting for Elizabeth Warren (and being a huge hypocrite)

FREE Simplisafe camera

Media firefighters can’t scramble fast enough to put out the fire started by Elizabeth Warren when she apparently lied about getting fired from a teaching job for being pregnant. Other women have totally been fired for being pregnant! Asking questions about Warren’s dubious victimhood narrative is sexist!

And then there’s this approach from Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, who’s insisting that the Washington Free Beacon presented their findings “without sufficient context” and that “conservatives and pro-Trumpers gobbled up” what Sullivan has deemed the “pregnancy smear”:

And shockingly, Sullivan completely ignores the concrete evidence strongly suggesting that Warren indeed lied about this. According to Sullivan, there’s plenty of “crucial context” proving that Warren has been telling the truth. That “crucial context” is CBS News’ interview with another teacher at the school where Warren worked, as well as, of course, Elizabeth Warren’s own words, which, as we all know, are worth everything.

Sullivan concludes:

It all seems to track: There is no big controversy here. No apparent lie and no “character issue” that should unduly concern the voting public.

If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

Count Stephen Miller, aka @redsteeze, among those extremely impressed by Sullivan’s journalistic diligence:

Did you not catch this, Margaret?

Weird, right?

Give Margaret credit: She’s found her narrative and she’s stickin’ to it, come hell or high water.

Tweeter Charles Martel brought one of Sullivan’s past hits to Miller’s attention:

The evidence against Warren is a lot more compelling and solid than the evidence against Brett Kavanaugh. But Sullivan’s not the kind of journalist who gets hung up on the details (the details that don’t support her narrative, that is).

She’ll have to get back to you about that. Or not.