“Why didn’t she denounce a plan to eat babies? Did she really have to?” The New York Times asked. Of course she didn’t. What serious reason do we have to believe she’s pro-cannibalism? An uncomfortable effort to defuse the situation, general adherence to democratic socialism, and pie-in-the-sky environmental policies do not count. Without Twitter, this would have been just another strange moment at a congressional town hall, which are prone to strange moments generally. (I can, by the way, see this reasonably as an opening for some limited reporting on the LaRouche group.)
Wohl is low-hanging fruit that journalists just can’t resist picking. Amusing as his efforts can be, what little influence the guy retains comes from our inability to simply ignore him. Wohl has been discredited across the board several times over. The risk of continuing to elevate him is not worth the cheap jabs, which serve the cause of blue-check backslapping more than anything else.
Political Twitter is easily distracted by stories with a dangerously unbalanced ratio of news value to entertainment value, even more so than the cable networks. (I’m not excluding myself from this.) Because the conversation is driven by coastal journalists who use our accounts for social and professional purposes, there’s a premium on media gossip, insular Beltway chatter, and amusing viral content. Neither of the stories mentioned above speak to broader trends whatsoever.