Democrats at all times appear to be the heroes within the copy of so-called “mainstream” media shops. Republicans typically emerge because the villains, squashing every part noble and good. The Left is often described because the reformers one way or the other missing an ideology.
Take a March 15 story main the Nationwide part of The New York Occasions. The headline was “For Voting Rights Advocates, a ‘As soon as in a Technology Second’ Looms: Opposition to restrictive Republican voting legal guidelines — and help for a sweeping Democratic invoice — fuels a motion like none in a long time. However can it succeed?”
The Left is described as “voting rights advocates” having their “second” – as a result of Democrats are in charge of every part. Democrats have a “sweeping” proposal to battle these “restrictive” Republicans.
You’ll be able to witness extra of this careening tilt within the opening paragraph by supposedly goal reporters Nicholas Fandos and Michael Wines:
State and nationwide voting-rights advocates are waging essentially the most consequential political wrestle over entry to the poll because the civil rights period, a battle more and more targeted on a far-reaching federal overhaul of election guidelines in a last-ditch bid to offset a wave of voting restrictions sweeping Republican-controlled state legislatures.
So Republicans are pushing “restrictions” that may be slimed as curbing “entry to the poll” like “the civil rights period” (ahem, “racist”). Then the reporters laud the Democrat invoice as a “landmark nationwide enlargement of voting rights.” Democrats typically suggest “landmark” laws. That’s a part of how The New York Occasions and different shops less-than-subtly promote for the Democrats.
Out of 35 paragraphs on this story, the overwhelming majority describe how “advocacy teams” with names like Progress Arizona and Black Voters Matter are lobbying for the invoice. Joe Biden’s received to have his “Lyndon B. Johnson second,” they are saying. (Republicans, once more tagged as voter-repressing bigots.)
Just one paragraph includes a Republican argument in opposition to H.R. 1, that it’s a “cynical try by the left to place their thumb on the scales of democracy and engineer our legal guidelines to assist them win elections.”
That quote got here with a warning paragraph telling you to not consider the GOP: “Republicans are nonetheless infected by Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election and the occasion’s unified message that voting restrictions, lots of which fall most closely on minorities and Democratic-leaning voters, are wanted to stop fraud, which research have repeatedly proven to barely exist.”
The phrase “controversial” isn’t utilized by these scribes to H.R. 1. There aren’t any polls cited to see the place the voters land. For instance, a current survey by the Polling Firm discovered 77 p.c of respondents agree voters must be required to indicate a photograph ID once they vote. A McLaughlin and Associates ballot discovered 81 p.c help. H.R. 1 scraps that.
The McLaughlin ballot additionally discovered 85 p.c help for requiring signature verification for any mail-in voting. H.R. 1 would insure states couldn’t implement any witness signature or notarization requirement for mail-in voters.
The Occasions vaguely mentions “the Republican voting agenda that included curbs on mail-in and early voting and stiffer voter ID necessities.” They favor “curbs” and “stiffer” restrictions, not ballot-integrity measures.
This Occasions story doesn’t actually clarify what’s on this 800-page invoice. However it passes alongside the Democrat flatulence that “the rollback of voting rights” is “an existential risk to the democracy on which all different liberal causes, from gun management to well being care, rely.” So is that this a “rollback” of voting rights? Or simply the Left’s agenda?
“Repressive voting payments” are supported by nearly all of voters, however liberal journalists actually don’t care what the polls say. Journalism and liberalism are inevitably linked.