2020 Election Ethics Train Wreck

The New York Times’ Executive Editor Admits That His Paper “Went Too Far” Slanting Its News Reporting in 2020

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

(But claims by Donald Trump that the election was “rigged” are “baseless” and supported by no evidence at all….).

Ben Smith, the former media columnist for the New York Times, is hardly an unbiased interviewer when it comes to his old employer. He’s a product of the Times culture, and the Times culture is, has been and continues to be corrupted and unethical. The message of his recent interview with newish executive editor Joe Kahn is that the Times is all better now and is objective again after a teeny dip, though it hasn’t been objective in my lifetime.

What is revealing about the interview, however, is that if one can wade through the doubletalk, careful caveats, avoidance of direct statements and verbosity, Kahn admits that the Times was in the tank for Biden and the Democrats in 2020 as the pandemic and Black Lives Matter hit, and that it was wrong for the Times to do that, and they are really, really sorry and promise not to do it again.

Strangely, the Times has not apologized to Donald Trump, Republicans, the American voters and the Founders for this. His statement also puts in perspective the rote talking point, every time the news media sneeringly refers to Trump’s insistence that the election was stolen from him, that the claim is “baseless.” That the leader of the U.S. news media still regarded as the role model for the rest deliberately abandoned its already partisan-biased version of journalism for pure advocacy and propaganda in the year of a national election is very much a “base.” Ethics Alarms, among others, has said so, and was saying so in 2020. Remember those scary (and fake) Hunan virus death charts with red spikes reaching through and above the mast head? Yeah, I think we got a little carried away, says Kahn.

Oh, well that’s okay then. Everybody makes mistakes….

The man is, in order, as expert at avoiding speaking plainly as any politician, infuriatingly equivocal, blatantly partisan, and a master of spin. Nonetheless, if you can pick your way through all the fog, the confession is there. Here are some key sections with some commentary by me):

  • Ben Smith: “Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times: “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Why don’t you see your job as: “We’ve got to stop Trump?” What about your job doesn’t let you think that way?”

    Joe Kahn: “Good media is the Fourth Estate, it’s another pillar of democracy. One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, and the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election. To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear. It’s also true that Trump could win this election in a popular vote. Given that Trump’s not in office, it will probably be fair. And there’s a very good chance, based on our polling and other independent polling, that he will win that election in a popular vote. So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening. It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one.”

Continue reading →

What a Surprise. SCOTUS Agrees That the Left’s 14th Amendment Fantasy To Rig the 2024 Election Is the Cynical, Anti-Democratic Ploy That It Is.

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Reports on the oral argument before the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices’ questioning was harshly critical of the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court under scrutiny. That was the declaration that former President Trump’s conduct after the election in 2020 made him ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment section barring those who engaged in an insurrection from running for office.

It wasn’t just the solid conservatives (above) who doubted the Colorado ruling; even two-thirds of the so-called liberal bloc of the Court seemed unimpressed by the Colorado decision banning Trump from the ballot, which by extension makes the Supreme Court’s decision applicable to Maine as well as any other Trump-fearing states that are inclined to try the same tactic. Every Justice except the pathetic Sonia Sotamayor expressed skepticism at the Colorado argument and appeared to be more sympathetic with Trump’s lawyer’s positions.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: “Face the Nation” Host Margaret Brennan

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ooooh, I would fire Brennan for this if I were in charge of CBS news.

Brennan tried to cross-examine Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on last weekend’s “Face the Nation” about his stance on the 2020 election. “Back in 2021, you were the lawmaker who circulated the legal brief known as the “Texas Amicus Brief [actually Texas v. Pennsylvania] challenging the 2020 election outcome in a number of states,” Brennan stated, “which by CBS editorial standards makes you an election denier.”

“That’s nonsense,”Johnson replied, and when Brennan said: “Can I get you on the record on that?,” he continued, “I’ve always been consistent on the record. Did you read the brief? Did you get a chance to read what we filed with the Supreme Court?”

Her shocking answer, a veritable huminhuminhumina if ever there was one:”Well- I have read extensively some criticisms of that…”

Oh! She read some criticisms of the brief by her biased, propagandist colleagues, so that was sufficient preparation, she believed, to call someone who supported the brief’s arguments an “election denier.” That’s like using a book review to write a book report on a book you never read.

Continue reading →

Confirmation Bias Test: The Rasmussen 2020 Voter Fraud Survey

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Trump’s reaction aside, what is a fair, rational, measured way to evaluate the results of the just-relased Rasmussen survey about voter fraud in the 2020 election?

The headline is “One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election.” The findings, in brief:

1. “More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.”

2. “21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t.”

Continue reading →

Insulting Chutzpah Of The Year: Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Donald Trump may win the Ethics Alarms Ethics Dunce of the Year title (he has several entries in the field, and the year is young) as well as the Unethical Quote of the Year distinction (ditto). He has already won Asshole of the Year in record time. But with this one, he has forged a new category entirely.

During a rally over the weekend, following Mike Pence’s inevitable withdrawal from the Presidential race he never should have entered, Trump said, “People are leaving now and they’re all endorsing me. I don’t know about Mike Pence. He should endorse me. You know why? Because I had a great, successful Presidency and he was the Vice President. But people in politics can be very disloyal. ”

Continue reading →

AI Ethics: Should Alexa Have A Right To Its Opinion?

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

In an amusing development that raised long term ethics issues, Amazon’s AI “virtual assistant” Alexa has apparently crossed over to what Hillary Clinton regards as the Trump cult. When asked about fraud in the 2020 election, Alexa will respond that the election was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud.” “She” cited content on Rumble, a video streaming service for this conclusion. Alexa also informs inquirers that the 2020 contest was “notorious for many incidents of irregularities and indications pointing to electoral fraud taking place in major metro centers,” referencing various Substack newsletters. The device is also quite certain that Trump really won Pennsylvania.

Continue reading →

Observations On The Revived Claim That Google “Steered 6 Million Votes” to Biden in 2020

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Ben Bartley reports on PJ Media: “Robert Epstein….director of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), has concluded through a quantitative analysis of Google search engine manipulation and subsequent extrapolation to the population level that the company… added six million votes to Joe Biden’s column in 2020. If accurate, this was more than enough to have artificially swayed the election….The value of Epstein’s work is that it confirms what is immediately obvious to anyone paying attention who searches a contentious term in Google and then searches for the exact same term in a non-compromised search engine like DuckDuckGo.”

Observations:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Month: The 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

“We find that the White House, acting in concert with the Surgeon General’s office, likely (1) coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences, and (2) significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment.”

—A three-judge panel of the The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, substantially upholding a lower court’s preliminary injunction in The State of Missouri et al v Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al,

The Per Curiam opinion is here, and its legal and ethical clarity cannot be overstated. The Court wrote in part,

. . . On multiple occasions, the officials coerced the platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to moderate content. Privately, the officials were not shy in their requests—they asked the platforms to remove posts “ASAP” and accounts “immediately,” and to “slow[] down” or “demote[]” content.

It is uncontested that, between the White House and the Surgeon General’s office, government officials asked the platforms to remove undesirable posts and users from their platforms, sent follow-up messages of condemnation when they did not, and publicly called on the platforms to act. When the officials’ demands were not met, the platforms received promises of legal regime changes, enforcement actions, and other unspoken threats.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Lawyer John Eastman On The Georgia Trump Indictments

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“I am here today to surrender to an indictment that should never have been brought.  It represents a crossing of the Rubicon for our country, implicating the fundamental First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  As troubling, it targets attorneys for their zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients, something attorneys are ethically bound to provide and which was attempted here by “formally challeng[ing] the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means.”  – An opportunity never afforded them in the Fulton County Superior Court. Each Defendant in this indictment, no less than any other American citizen, is entitled to rely upon the advice of counsel and the benefit of past legal precedent in challenging what former Vice President Pence described as, “serious allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law” in the 2020 election.  The attempt to criminalize our rights to such redress with this indictment will have – and is already having – profound consequences for our system of justice. My legal team and I will vigorously contest every count of the indictment in which I am named, and also every count in which others are named, for which my knowledge of the relevant facts, law, and constitutional provisions may prove helpful.  I am confident that, when the law is faithfully applied in this proceeding, all of my co-defendants and I will be fully vindicated.”

John Eastman, respected conservative legal scholar, lawyer, law professor and former Dean of Chapman University Law School, as he surrendered last week to authorities on charges in the Georgia case alleging an illegal plot to overturn the Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On A Rare Outburst Of Anti-Biden Candor On CNN…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Well. Let’s see…

Continue reading →