Spiro Agnew’s Ghost: The Mysterious Presence That Haunts Washington DC

spiro agnew's ghost

Spiro Agnew’s Ghost is an anonymous person who comments on Politics on Twitter. Let’s learn more about this person.

The ghost identity of Spiro Agnews is a social media influencer who tweets about politics on the Twitter platform

Who is spiro agnew’s ghost?

Spiro Agnews Ghost is a social media phenomenon and, as the name suggests, a currently unknown ghost Agnews Ghost is very popular on Twitter for politics. He usually posts about current political news and politics.

Currently, he has more than 142k followers with 270.6k tweets on it.

Agnews has followed 38 accounts and manages the account with the name spiro agnew’s ghost. He has also maintained the profile and cover photo of the real Spiro Agnew. He signed up to the platform in February 2014.

Moreover, most people are wondering who is really the brain behind the Twitter account and wanted to know him better, but he has not yet revealed his real identity.

After all, Spiro Theodore Agnew was the 39th Vice President of the United States. During his lifetime, he served from 1969 until his resignation in 1973, according to Wikipedia.

whAt Spiro do?

Spiro agnew’s ghost is remembered for not contesting bribery-related tax evasion charges and for resigning as Richard Nixon’s vice president. But his sign of political achievement was the start of a campaign that lasted more than four decades painting the mainstream media as biased, liberal and elitist.

Long ago, anti-media sentiment was bubbling on the right when Agnew addressed what were then the big three television networks to represent “a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.”

“The American people would not rightly allow this kind of concentration of power in government,” Agnew declared in a speech in Des Moines in 1969. “Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one and enjoying a government-sanctioned and government-licensed monopoly?”

Agnew was tireless. With help from William Safire and Pat Buchanan, Nixon’s gifted speechwriter (and, later, columnist), he coined many memorable phrases, including the alliteration “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

Hardly has a united political effort been more successful. Ever since then, reporters, editors and producers have looked relentlessly to the right, fearing they can be attack as secret carriers of the liberal virus.

But the 2016 campaign has brought an intense progressive backlash against the media’s timidity towards the right. Coverage of Donald Trump has been an opportunity for a new credibility crisis.


Narration About Clination

Then there’s the issue of Trump’s excessive access to TV time during the elections, which exceed the attention given to his rivals. Liberals insist that Trump is being treat far worse than Hillary Clinton. Which in turn means that while each new scandal involving Trump is given relatively short shrift, the same old scandals involved Clinton are still being publicized.

Allowing Trump to dominate television time during the primary campaign has nothing directly to do with the liberal-conservative dispute, but it is something the media will have to answer for. This was to the detriment of other Republican presidential candidates and reflected a hunger for ratings that overcame any concern for balance.

But the coverage of Trump and Clinton suggests that the media, which is highly sensitive to conservative criticism, is now overcompensating against the other side. Josh Marshall, founder of the Talking Points Memo blog, offered one of the clearest expressions of this problem. “There is no doubt,” he wrote last week, “that the scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s emails had a repetitive, hyper skeptical and saturated reach that was not close to being matched by any investigative story about Donald Trump. It’s not remotely close.”

The problem is not asking the media to avoid holding Clinton counted. But journalists need to ask themselves if they have created a narrative about Clinton that paints her as less Honest than Trump, even though the factual evidence is overwhelming that he lies far more than she does.

Newyork times journalist

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof pointed out that while 53% of Trump’s verified statements were “false” or “Pants on Fire,” only 13% of Clinton’s were false.

Putting ideological concerns aside, Marshall argued that Trump’s “repeated false claims were so brazen and repetitive” that they put all traditional media rules and practices “under pressure.” Trump continues to say he opposed the Iraq war when evidence from 2002 and 2003 shows he supported it. And the birther-in-chief, who made a name for himself on the right by insinuating for years that Barack Obama was ineligible to be president, had the gall to say, falsely, that Clinton started it all.

Journalists are often reluctant to call Trump a liar, even when he is lying, lest their objectivity be question.

Liberals’ complaints about the media are themselves typically characterize as partisan, and of course liberals are angry. They are angry that the right’s own partisan media campaign has frighten journalistic institutions. They’re angry that Clinton’s shortcomings are enhance and mention, while negative stories about Trump often get only one coverage and move on. And they are angry when Trump’s lies are not called lies.

But the motives of the critics don’t matter. What matters is whether their complaints are legitimate. For the first time since Agnew launch his big conservative campaign against the media, those running our journalistic institutions are being systematically questioned about whether they are so worried about condemning the right that they are now proved biased against the Democratic presidential nominee.

This is how media evaluation has at last become fair and balance.

Read Also – Who Is Randy Suessmetz New Yorktimes?

Leave a Comment