All I'm saying is that there is no proof this was a con and the press acting like there was was irresponsible.
This is a sticky wicket, speaking as an editor.
I could argue that when/if things blow up on Twitter it is absolutely newsworthy to report on them. After all, our POTUS uses Twitter as a news service to announce hirings, firings, policy changes, etc.
Hate it or not, the Twitterverse - and what is happening on it - is now absolutely part of the political fabric of American government. And needs to be reported on.
Now, here is where you and I agree - it is absolutely poor journalism for reporters to presume intent or apply labels based on crap they see on Twitter. If I were to assign a reporter to the story in question, I would have made sure they noted that it was a purported Qanon member - point out that Qanon is a fringe far-right group - and had them focus on the outpouring of support and backlash to THAT SPECIFIC Tweet and not couch it as a backlash to "conservative outrage" because, as noted, there WASN'T conservative (writ large) outrage.
To me, the more interesting story on this is the big picture - that Twitter is now a battleground and that the "fog of war" of knowing who is legit is becoming increasingly hard to discern.
But hey, that takes a lot more time and effort than writing a quick online hit piece.
