Why is it important that she *dismiss* the claims rather than examining the evidence?
It's part of her willing blindness - she *has* to make a "both sides have flaws" appeal because it's the only way to dismiss evidence that journalists are lying ideologues It's important to her position that she gets to dismiss those claims
-
-
-
Because she's a propagandist of the "everything is fine" school and knows that a dispassionate presentation of the evidence about journalists would be devastating to their public perception among people who don't pay close attention
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.