Spiro agnew’s ghost

Spiro Agnew’s Ghost is an unknown user who posts comments about Politics in Twitter. We can learn more about this person.

The pseudonym that is Spiro Agnews, a popular social political influencer on Twitter. Twitter platform.


Spiro Agnews Ghost can be described as an internet sensation and like the name implies an unidentified ghost. Agnews Ghost is extremely well-known on Twitter for his political posts. He is usually active on Twitter discussing current political news and political issues.

At present, he enjoys more followers than the 142k mark, and 270.6k tweets.

Agnews has been following 38 accounts and is the manager of the account under the name of Spiro agnew’s Ghost. Agnew also maintains both the photo and profile of actual Spiro Agnew. He joined the site in February of 2014.

In addition, many are wondering who’s the person behind Twitter’s account. was interested in knowing more about him however, he hasn’t yet revealed his true identity.

For all we know, Spiro Theodore Agnew was the 39th Vice President of the United States. In his time his term was since 1969, and resigned in the year 1973 in accordance with Wikipedia.


Spiro his ghost will be remembered as not defending tax evasion-related bribery allegations and for resigning as Nixon’s vice-president. His only sign of political accomplishment was the beginning of a campaign which lasted more than four decades . He painted traditional media outlets as liberal, biased and exclusive.

In the past the anti-media movement was bubbling in the right-wing when Agnew spoke out against what were at the time the three major television networks as “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 delivered 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 unstoppable. With the assistance of William Safire and Pat Buchanan Nixon’s talented speechwriter (and later, columnist) He coined a variety of famous phrases, such as an alliteration of “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

Rarely has a single political effort had more success. Since then, reporters and editors have been glued towards the right, in fear that they might be targeted as hidden agents of the liberal virus.

The 2016 election has led to a ferocious anti-media backlash that is progressive and aimed at media’s reticence towards the right. Reportage on Donald Trump has been an chance to create a new credibility crisis.


Also, there’s concern about Trump’s over-the-top access to television during the presidential election that is more than the amount of attention paid to his opponents. Liberals claim that Trump is treated far better as Hillary Clinton. That means that each new scandal that involves Trump gets a relatively brief attention, the same scandals that involved Clinton continue to be uncovered.

The decision to allow Trump to control the airwaves during the primary election is not directly connected with the controversy between liberals and conservatives however it’s something that the media must be accountable for. This was at the expense of the other Republican presidential candidates, and revealed the desire for ratings that outweighed any concerns about balance.

But the news coverage on Trump and Clinton indicates that media very attuned to criticism from conservatives is now compensating for the opposing side. Josh Marshall, founder of the Talking Points Memo blog, has provided one of the most concise explanations of the problem. “There is no doubt,” Marshall wrote this week “that this scrutiny on the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s emails had a Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s emails were a continuous high-stakes, hyper-skeptical, and over-saturated reach that was far from to being replicated by an investigative piece about Donald Trump. The Clinton Foundation’s scrutiny isn’t even remotely comparable.”

The issue is not trying to convince the media to stop having Clinton accountable. Journalists must consider whether they have made up a myth about Clinton which portrays her as less honest than Trump, despite the facts prove that he lies more often than she lies.


New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof noted that, while the majority of Donald Trump’s confirmed claims included “false” or “Pants on Fire,” only 13% of Clinton’s statements were incorrect.

While ignoring ideological differences, Marshall argued that Trump’s “repeated false claims were so brazen and repetitive” that they put traditional media laws and methods “under pressure.” Trump persists to claim he is against the Iraq war even though data from the years 2002 and 2003 proves that he was in favor of the war. And the birther-in chief, who established himself on the left through his insistence over the many years in the past that Barack Obama was ineligible to be president, was foolish enough to claim, falsely, that Clinton was the one who started it all.

Journalists tend to be unwilling to label Trump as a deceiver even when he’s lying, in case their credibility be questioned.

Liberals complain regarding the media generally characterized as partisan, and obviously liberals are mad. They are furious that the right’s party-line media has intimidated the institutions of journalism. They’re irritated that Clinton’s failings are highlighted and discussed in negative articles concerning Trump usually receive just one or two coverages and then move on. They are also angry that Trump’s lies don’t get classified as lies.

But the motivations of critics aren’t important. What is important is whether their criticisms are valid. First time ever since Agnew began his major anti-media campaign of conservatism journalists, the leaders of our journalistic institutions are constantly being scrutinized regarding whether they’re so anxious about being criticized by the right that they have now being proven to be biased against the Democratic presidential candidate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *