I am not certain any more which is more infuriating: the increasingly brazen abdication of American journalism’s duty to inform the public fairly, objectively and without distortion and manipulation, or the refusal of members of the public whose personal political objectives are served by the abdication to acknowledge that it is occurring.
Yesterday, the New York Times carried a front page story headlined Kentucky Vote Drew Out Trolls In 2020 Omen. It contained numerous ethics alarm-ringers, such as…
A few hours after polls closed in Kentucky last Tuesday, a Twitter user writing under the handle @Overlordkraken1 posted a message to his 19 followers saying he had “just shredded a box of Republican mail-in ballots”…..just in case anyone missed the significance of the destroyed-ballots claim, @Overlordkraken1 added a final touch to his tweet: “Bye-Bye Bevin,” he wrote…Within hours of @Overlordkraken1’s tweet, as it became apparent that Mr. Bevin was trailing in the vote tally, hyperpartisan conservatives and trolls were pushing out a screenshot of the message, boosted by what appeared to be a network of bots, and providing early grist for allegations of electoral theft in Kentucky. High-profile right-wing figures were soon tweeting out their own conspiracy theories about the election being stolen — messages that were in turn pushed by even more trolls and bots — and the Bevin campaign began talking about “irregularities” in the vote without offering any specifics or evidence.
Yes, there we have an excellent example of how social media and the speed and reach of the internet can start rumors and facilitate disinformation, as well as serve the sinister objectives of those seeking to benefit from seeding untruths and distrust. Except..1. The Times has no idea whether or not the tweet was “trolling” and 2., The Times and other supposedly accurate news sources have been responsible for disinformation of their own that also started rumors and spread disinformation.
The Times also noted with approval that Twitter suspended the account, though there is no way Twitter could have determined that an anonymous poster had not shredded ballots. Never mind: the news media and social media are self-appointed guardians of the truth, at least the truth as they want it perceived.
Then we got this: “Kentucky is shaping up to be a case study in the real-world impact of disinformation — and a preview of what election-security officials and experts fear could unfold a year from now if the 2020 presidential election comes down to the wire.”
The message is insidious, implied but clear—Republican disinformation. We are told that…
“…allegations of irregularities echo the Trump playbook. Mr. Trump has sown doubts about a “rigged election” system since before his own election, including openly questioning the mail-in ballot process in Colorado. He then contended that fraud had lost him the popular vote (which Hillary Clinton won by 2.9 million votes). And he has amplified similar theories while in office, tweeting at least 40 times about unfounded voter fraud allegations, according to an analysis by The New York Times, including a claim after the midterm elections last year that “many ballots are missing or forged” in Florida.”
Then we get the pious lecture:
“Such divisive rhetoric after close elections has always risked shaking public faith in essential democratic institutions. But in a profoundly polarized country where narrow margins are hardly uncommon, sophisticated networks of social media users — human and bot — can quickly turn partisan rancor into grave threats, rapidly amplifying disinformation and creating an initial veneer of vast discord that can eventually become self-fulfilling….While the Kentucky election, held in an off-year, remains a sideshow to most people outside the state, election security experts see in it a worrying sign of what Americans may be forced to contend with next November.”
Here are some matters never mentioned or even alluded to in the article:
- The many-years long accusations by Democrats and activists, heavily supported by the media, that Republicans are suppressing the votes of minorities by seeking to require reliable identification of voters, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that requiring voter identification was responsible and necessary.
- The strong evidence that absentee voting and other efforts to make voting easier–all measures pushed by the Democratic Party— is a breeding ground for voter fraud.
- The false narrative, still perpetuated by progressive activists and pundits, that the Supreme Court “robbed ” Al Gore of the election victory in 2000. Gore’s name does not appear in the article.
- The fact that Democratic “rising star” Stacy Abrams still declares publicly that she won the 2018 governor’s election in Georgia, and has refused to concede. Abrams and her election fraud claims, which are unsupported, are not mentioned in the article.
- Hillary Clinton’s claim almost immediately after she lost the 2016 election that the vote was tainted, and rhetoric of leaders of the Democratic Party and “the resistance” that the Electoral College victory by Trump was undemocratic and illegitimate, and that Trump is an illegitimate President.
But “allegations of irregularities echo the Trump playbook.”
To my eye, the instances of flagrant misrepresentation and partisan bias in the news media have become increasingly defiant. There is nothing wrong with the general topic of this news story, but it is outrageous to discuss how “divisive rhetoric after close elections” shakes “public faith in essential democratic institutions” and risks turning “partisan rancor into grave threats.” without apportioning accountability according to known and recent facts, meaning that both parties have been guilty of these dangerous practices.
I would like to assume that any competent and ethical editor would check this story and return it to the reporters (in this case, Matthew Rosenberg and Nick Corrassanti ) saying, “Are you kidding me? You’re talking about sewing public doubts after close elections and don’t even mention Goer, Abrams, and Clinton? What’s the matter with you?”
But no. I know bias makes you stupid, but it can’t make smart and competent people THAT stupid. If this happens, and it did here, it is no accident. It’s intentional, and it is done because the unethical journalists think it works, and that they will get away with it.