Right v Left Reporting

George Rebane

The most recent SCOTUS rulings on abortion and gun rights got me thinking again how the Left and Right differ in the manner their outlets report the news, debate issues, and frame their commentaries.  As shown here for years, the asymmetry is pronounced since the Left has never had supporting arguments for their positions and policies that survive in the light of the record and reason.  It is easy to confirm this claim by just tuning in to, say, FN, and then to MSNBC, CNN, or any of the big three.

On FN the viewer is exposed to extensive coverage of the actual videos of leftwing reporters and commentators who have diametrically opposite views from those promoted by the conservative outlet.  Such exposure of rightwing counter arguments is absent on leftwing outlets; there you just get the Democrat party line and established narrative, with opposing views not presented but  simply characterized as wrong and/or evil.  And here I’m talking about the ‘core arguments’ that sustain a position, not just reporting that so-and-so disagreed with what is asserted.

According to my lights, proper journalism, debate, and commentary that takes/reports on a given position should always include the core arguments for and against what is at issue.  When only the pro-side core argument is delivered, then the result is simply propaganda and anticipates a good level of ignorance on the audience’s part in order to make the one-sided case stick.  The leftwing outlets uniformly demonstrate this in their coverage.  And I regret to say that, mainly through sloppy reporting, we see some of the same occasionally from the Right, mostly when it further supports the ideological leaning of the outlet.

A current example of this is citing polls to claim that ‘most Americans are pro-choice’ in order to represent the SCOTUS ruling as being anti-American, extreme, and beyond the bounds of jurisprudence.  The citations refer to polls that contain certain summary compilations of respondents’ attitudes or just answers to a question that nowhere near captured and communicated the complexity of the issue to the respondent.  ‘Do you believe that all abortion should be illegal in America?’ vs ‘Under what circumstances like term of pregnancy, rape, incest, if any, would you consider legalizing abortion?’  When the latter question is answered then a more complete spectrum of the country’s attitudes comes to light that is reported on FN, but blacked out on the lamestream outlets.

Similar examples can be given to the perennial reports by the Left of ‘gun violence’ in the country that include suicides, accidents, and other non-malevolent incidents involving firearms.  In this case the audience is also expected to be ignorant of the superb record of gun safety and legal uses that the country’s CCW holders have demonstrated over the decades.  (CCW holders are many times more reliable on gun usage than are the country’s law enforcement officers.)  None of these core arguments for expanding the carry laws are presented by the lamestream, which only report how some light-readers (usually female) breathlessly fear for their own safety if more law-abiding citizens in public are now armed.  The emphasis again is focused on expanding ‘gun-free zones’, with no reporting that these do nothing to promote gun safety because it focuses the criminal and rogue gun users to where they will be most secure as they commit real gun violence.  (Shouldn’t Chicago be declared a gun-free zone to make its streets safe?)

Perhaps the most egregious violation of journalistic standards by the Left is in the reporting on matters of governance.  The dumbing of America, through its huge public educational deficits over the last decades, almost guarantees that very few know the three branches of government and their roles in governance.  Most people are not aware that Congress has the sole power and responsibility to make the country’s laws.  What share of Americans know that the Judicial Branch has no constitutional imprimatur to legislate, and must restrict itself to adjudicating the constitutionality of laws at issue when such a complaint arises and a case is presented for resolution?

And finally, how many among us know that the Executive is not empowered to make the laws of the land, but only to enforce the laws and their subsequent regulatory haloes within the originating intent of Congress.  Presidential executive orders are intended to manage the operations of the executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions. (more here)  They are issued when the president decides that Congress may not or cannot fulfill a specific need in a timely manner, and may be withdrawn only by a sitting president.  (Congress may pass legislation making the execution of an EO difficult, or even impossible when it requires special funding.)  But recently presidents have overstepped the intended boundary of the EO, and issued some that are constructively new laws of the land.  Again, the reporting on this by the Left is absent when a Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

Comments

[Scott O]

Could it be, George, that there exists a cohort of Americans that would like to have their news neatly packaged in line with a pre-assumed narrative?
Maybe news that simply reports what happens and tries to show there are perhaps different sides to the story becomes unsettling to folks as it may leave them with questions and the task of actually having to think about the facts and pondering the individual cases as more facts emerge? This might be a task too onerous for the left and the Dems.
From what I see in the trends in govt run schools, critical thinking is not a very high priority.
Furthermore - expecting the workers in the news business to correctly expound on a subject such as the functions of a fed govt in a Republic is a near-impossibility as they, themselves, have no knowledge on the subject.

[Paul Emery]

George

When you refer to Fox News are you referring to Hannity etc or the actual Fox news coverage earlier in the day? I don't consider Hannity etc or Rachel etc to be news coverage but more commentary and News for entertainment.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1009am - Good question. Actually I'm referring to the whole kit and caboodle that Fox delivers. FN's and FB's daily news programs tend toward the mid-right and regularly leave out the more contentious/onerous reports of what the Dems are doing. These iniquities are then picked up and amplified by the commentary cadre of Carson, Hannity, Ingraham, et al around which they often wrap their commentary diatribes. Together the Fox programs overwhelm the news coverage by the lamestream, the consumers of which are always surprised by the things they haven't heard.

[Paul Emery]

George

As you know Hannity has served as a personal advisor to Trump which should disqualify him from being taken seriously as a news reporter on the subject of Trump and elections. Here's details:

"The former Trump administration official Stephanie Grisham on Thursday said the Fox News host Sean Hannity acted "like a shadow advisor" to President Donald Trump.

"Sean Hannity, I've got to say — he was like a shadow advisor,"
"I spoke to him all the time. I sat with him prior to interviews he would do with the president. And he definitely advised the president on many, many things to do," she added."

https://www.businessinsider.com/stephanie-grisham-sean-hannity-was-like-a-shadow-advisor-to-trump-2022-1

There's actually tons of examples on line if you google Hannity Trump advisor

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hannity+trump+advisor

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1214p - What's your point? Hannity, along with the other Fox commentarians, frequently breaks news that is subsequently confirmed and even picked up much later by a few lamestream outlets. I don't have to embrace everything a messenger brings; that's where discrimination and discernment come in. You have made it clear that you reject even listening to messengers of whom you disapprove. Your choice.

[Bill Tozer]

Paul E

O’Reilly, then Hannity, now Tucker is blowing the competition away, hands down. Tucker is the new King of the Hill. Like, more than all the PMSBC, LSDNBC, Clinton News Network, Democrat News Network viewers combined. Sizzling, as far as inside media goes. What even happed to Alan Combs? Remember when Stuart Smiley wrote the book Rush Limbaugh IS A Big Fat Liar? Al Franken or something was his name.

So Hannity freely advised the President as scores of others do. He should recuse himself for public view.

Hannity don’t deny it. His star is fading, viewer wise. I hear your concerns. And obliviously esteemed Pulitzer Prize Laureate Paul Krugman is advising Joe Biden on our economy which would explain the reason our economy is doing down the drain at an accelerating rate of speed.

Hey Paul, why don’t you jump on lasted trial ballon Democrat bandwagon and start trashing Mrs. Clarence Thomas. Uncle Thomas should recuse himself from every decision! Nay, they keep launching that trial ballon again and again from time to time. The outrage is thick. FYI:

Did you know Clarence Thomas presided over Rush Limbaugh’s private wedding. Judge Thomas read the vows. :)

[Paul Emery]

So George isn't someone who is a personal advisor to the President naturally inclined to tilt favorably in their direction when it comes to news slants?

[Scott O]

Paul 12:14 - "As you know Hannity has served as a personal advisor to Trump which should disqualify him from being taken seriously as a news reporter on the subject of Trump and elections."
Hilarious!
So - Paul listens to no news at all?
Most of the major outlets have been caught repeatedly either lying or simply refusing to cover major stories. What 'credibility' do they have?
We notice that Paul is unable to produce any evidence of anything Hannity has said that is false. Paul is the perfect example of my 5:22 post.
I listen to and read news and opinion from ALL the major web sites and news outlets. No matter what their rep or their bias. Paul is unable to do that because he can't subject his brain to ideas and facts that go against his extremely narrow and sad little world view.

[Paul Emery]

So Scott you have no problem with a personal advisor to Trump being a major news source. Ever hear of conflict of interest?

[Scott O]

First off Paul, we notice you dodged my question.
What else is new?
If I asked Paul his name he'd shit his pants and run.
Next -
As far as the description that was given concerning the relationship between Trump and Hannity from one individual and not verified by anyone else...
Hard to say. Can you point to an actual newscast from Hannity that displayed this conflict of interest? I see that there could be the possibility, but then again why only Hannity and Trump? Does Paul claim this sort of relationship that was alleged never occurred with other admins?
I am pretty sure I never watched Hannity while Trump was POTUS so I'm not a proper judge in this matter. Apparently Paul watches Hannity all the time and can provide the dirty details of Hannity broadcasting something false or self-serving that would expose this alleged conflict of interest?

[Bill Tozer]

Leftwing media news? You mean the vsst arm of the Democrat Party?

Wonder what O'Reilly has to say.

https://fb.watch/dW1qG4yAbb/

[Paul Emery]

Here is Hannity's own words. What more do you need:

“I never claimed to be a journalist,” Hannity told Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg in a recent interview. “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/donald-trump-sean-hannity-campaign-advice

[Scott O]

re Paul 6:05 - First off:
Still won't answer any questions. Probably can't find the correct cue card?
So - Paul's big expose is that Hannity is being open and honest about his role and his wishes.
Ummm...
Not seeing any conflict of interest there, Paul.
How does any of that make what Hannity reports false, self serving or deceptive?

[Paul Emery]

So you then Scott how can you regard Hannity as an independent unbiased journalist if he is actively involved in promoting Trumps campaign by being his advisor?

[Scott O]

Oh good Lord - "So you then Scott how can you regard Hannity as an independent unbiased journalist..."
Trying to remember when I regarded Hannity in that way...
C,mon folks - help me out here.
Anyone remember me claiming that Hannity was 'independent' and 'unbiased'?

Question for Paul...
Naw - he won't answer.

I'm glad Paul has a hobby where he flails around looking for the most evilest and terrible thing he can find in the universe.
Hannity and Trump are buds and talk about stuff.
Hannity then tells folks about it.
Paul - you scared, bro?

[Paul Emery]

Scott

So then you must agree that he cannot be an independent journalist.

George writes " As shown here for years, the asymmetry is pronounced since the Left has never had supporting arguments for their positions and policies that survive in the light of the record and reason."

George that is totally your opinion and nothing more. It is not a matter of fact. You should have prefaced that view with a simple: "In my opinion...."

[Scott O]

Paul - "So then you must agree that he cannot be an independent journalist."
Oh - must I?
Your thinker is busted, Paul. Get some help.
But wait - there's more!
"George that is totally your opinion and nothing more. It is not a matter of fact."
Says the dude that just provided nothing to back up his BS.
I asked for evidence from Paul and he does nothing more than prove George's point.
I'm guessing Paul is trying to prop up his non-whitey status by not being able to use logic or linear thought.
He nails it!

[Paul Emery]

Scott

I gave you evidence that Hannity cannot be an independent Journalist because he says himself in a direct quote "I Never claimed to be a journalist". What more do you need?

[Paul Emery]

Also Scott what do you mean when you say " Paul is trying to prop up his non-whitey status by not being able to use logic or linear thought."

What "non whitey" groups are you referring to and why?

[George Rebane]

PaulE, you've gone off the deep end again. Who in hell said anything about 'unbiased', 'independent', and all the other words you're trying stuff into other people's mouths.

[Paul Emery]

George

Being "unbiased and independent", is the essence of journalism. How can that not be part of any assessment of how outlets report the news?

[Don Bessee]

Says the ponytail of ignorance and his guitar case @926 Sounds like some pos like brian stelter or dumb lemon is his kind of journalist. ROFLOL

;-)

[Scott O]

Paul 9:26 - "Being "unbiased and independent", is the essence of journalism."
So - there are no journalists.
And Paul doesn't read or watch any news and knows nothing.
Cool.
Now we understand.

[Scott O]

Paul - "What "non whitey" groups are you referring to and why?"
See?
Paul is blissfully ignorant.
Because ignorance is bliss.

[Michael Kesti]

Paul Emery | 27 June 2022 at 09:26 PM

So much for unbiased and independent being the essence of journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_endorsements_in_the_2020_United_States_presidential_primaries

[Bill Tozer]

I seem to recall that the NYT, Wa Compost, and just about every single leftist controlled media outfit in the entire USA told their journalists to throw out unbiased and independent reporting and go after Donald J. Trump in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Toss out ALL journalist standards….temporary….in your coverage of Trump.

I believe that the mainstream media is an active and powerful arm of the Democrat Party. All journalistic standards to be put aside until Trump is removed from office by any means necessary. Then we will get back to “normal”. Normal for the Left is biased and not independent journalism.

The word of yesterday was ‘integrity’. The ‘integrity’ of the Supreme Court has been trashed, the integrity of the our judicial system is at stake, the integrity this, the integrity that….bad, bad, bad. ‘Integrity’ was the bubble talking point of the day. All on the same page, everybody.
————-
MARK LEVIN, UNPLUGGED

In his new book, Unfreedom of the Press, broadcast star Mark Levin argues that liberals in the media are promoting an agenda an

https://mishpacha.com/mark-levin-unplugged/

[Gregory]

Punchy forgets his pushing of Raw Story "reporting"

[Bill Tozer]

It’s the media, not the Supreme Court, who are the activists. Journalism school today grooms all young minds to become journalist activists.

Media Meltdown Compilation: Roe Overturned, Journalists Hardest Hit

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2022/06/24/media-meltdown-compilation-roe-overturned-journalists-hardest
—————
Montage:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=853326575073472
————-
The Supreme Court’s Extreme Majority Risks Turning Back the Clock on Decades of Progress and Undermining Our Democracy

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-supreme-courts-extreme-majority-risks-turning-back-the-clock-on-decades-of-progress/
—————
NYT
‘Politicization of the Supreme Court Is Eroding Its Legitimacy’

1 day ago — All the Supreme Court really has to go on is the public's acceptance of its rulings as legitimate. “Once you lose that, it's not really ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/opinion/dobbs-supreme-court-legitimacy.html

[paul emery]

I usually use direct quotes Gregory if you pay attention.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 926pm - "Being 'unbiased and independent', is the essence of journalism." Paul, I know that this will come as a big surprise to you this late in your career in journalism, but journalism has NEVER enjoyed that "essence", those who attempt convince you otherwise are either naïfs or charlatans. Journalism is one of the most deprecated professions as witnessed by each succeeding opinion poll about what the public thinks of journalists. And they lose more credibility every time one of them or their lackeys brings up the 'unbiased and independent' argument.

To keep you from circling the barn too many times, you may want to refresh yourself on my own assessment of the journalistic profession. This is just a partial list of relevant RR commentaries on journalism since 2007.
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2007/12/i-am-not-a-jour.html
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2018/01/journalisms-mea-culpa.html
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2020/05/journalists-opinions.html
https://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2021/02/facts-speech-and-reach.html#more

[Paul Emery]

George

How abut when a so called journalist such a Hannity becomes a strategic advisor to the President and then "reporting" on those same activities? Do you hold Hannity in high esteem as a reliable source of important news and information?

[Scott O]

Paul's found another dead horse.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1031am - You're back to your binary thinking - high v low reliability/esteem. I consider people like Hannity to be commentators, as opposed to people like Baier and the daytime crew to be more like journalists. On the reporting of breaking news, I have yet to detect a biased mistake by Hannity or any of the others. On their opinions and interpretations, I am a Bayesian and know their biases. Doesn't sound like you read any of my links.

I evaluate opinions and interpretations on the basis of their inclusion and explaining away of the core question(s) that relate to the issue. If these are not discussed (as in almost all lamestream reporting) then my reliability assessment on the presented perspective takes a dive. What do you do? (I note that you continue your practice of not answering my questions. Why is that?)

[Paul Emery]

George

Watched much of the Jan 6 hearings today and I decided to follow your advice and get the news from a different source-Fox. Well been watching it for over a half hour and guess what? Not a peep. Whats that all about?

[Paul Emery]

George

I take that back-they just brought it up.

[Paul Emery]

Actually their coverage was quite good with covering all relevant issues.

[Gregory]

I remember Baier sandbagging Ron Paul in 2016 Primary season. Or 2012?... Paul had barely lost to someone (Michelle Bachmann?) who they were fawning over. Baier and the whole Fox crew was doing their best to ignore their own double standards.

Checking, it was the 2012 campaign...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Straw_Poll_(1979%E2%80%932011)#2011

Bachmann had a .9% edge over Paul.

[Bill Tozer]

“How abut when a so called journalist such a Hannity becomes a strategic advisor to the President and then "reporting" on those same activities?”

That did not take long. Hannity has been elevated to ‘strategic advisor’.

Hannity has been rocketed to the stratosphere. Strategic Adviser. More like giving Trump his opinion and thoughts. Climbing up the ladder, Sean. Good job. Not bad to have someone report on the working inside the Trump White House and know what they are talking about.
Hannity has made no bones about supporting Trump as well as any number of insider DNC journalists who have made no bones about not supporting Trump ever never ever.

Sources ‘close to the White House’are usually a couple of drunk reporters at a bar close to the WH and talking and telling each other what they think or heard.

[Don Bessee]

So much for the 'bombshell' witness all hearsay and lies -

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/report-lead-secret-service-agent-will-testify-trump-did-not-try-to-commandeer-car-on-january-6/

;-)

[Scott O]

BT - Paul is just going off on his usual route of:
I found out one single factoid and it totally justifies all of my world view and makes you conservatives at RR all wrong about everything!

He has no clue about the completely incestuous relationship of the LSN media and the Dems.
One example:
The current POTUS spokes-liar is married to a CNN "television news journalist".
Not that it changes my opinion of either one of them or of CNN.
It goes on all the time. But Paul comes up with a rumor that Hannity talked with Trump and Hannity is on FOX and off to the races we go!
I asked Paul for an example of Hannity misrepresenting something or being compromised because of what Paul had read and Paul comes up with his usual nothing. No proof, no examples - zilch.
But just let him go - he's found his latest dead horse and he'll beat it until the next shiny object comes into view.

[Bill Tozer]

That dog don’t hunt. What a fuddyduddy.

[Bill Tozer]

ROFLMAO…..
‘ABC & NBC Debunk Trump Assaulting Secret Service, CBS Ignores’

“On Tuesday, it was revealed that former President Trump had allegedly lunged at his Secret Service limo driver and attempted to grab the steering wheel on the morning of January 6, 2021, when he was told he wouldn’t be allowed to go to the Capitol after his speech at the White House Ellipse.

This was made public by former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson during Tuesday’s congressional hearing into the January 6 Capitol riots.”

And they believed it!!!!!!! They were afraid of Trump near the nuclear football in his last days. Trump is going to launch at somebody, better warn China and take those codes away from him and his Twitter account. The drama. The Breaking News dud. But, they got their Trump image out, that’s all that matters.

H/T to Bessee @ 5:33 pm Definitely a Whooper with cheese.
—————
Breaking News!

Exclusive: Former White House Staffer Confirms Jan. 6 Committee Lied About DOJ Attorney

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/exclusive-former-white-house-staffer-confirms-jan-6-committee-lied-about-doj-attorney/
—————
Well, the evidence will not be able to stand up in court if he was called as a witness on the J-6 committee. Was he THE surprise witness with valuable new information that caused the delay…..? Thursday night got moved to Thursday afternoon and bumped until the new ‘Breaking News!’ witness comes forth. Happens all the time. Call a witness and he ups and kicks the bucket. Another death attributed to J-6 I reckon.

‘Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger, in Charge of Security on Jan. 6, Dies at 71’
He resigned at the request of Sen. Mitch McConnell

https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-senate-sergeant-at-arms-michael-stenger-in-charge-of-security-on-jan-6-dies-at-71_4562860.html?

[Don Bessee]

Gotta love the headline -

JAN 6 COMMITTEE Confusion

REPORT: Secret Service to Deny Key Claims of 25 years-old Superstar Witness

Impeachment 3.0: (Likely False) 2nd-Hand Hearsay Weaponized Against Trump

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/report-lead-secret-service-agent-will-testify-trump-did-not-try-to-commandeer-car-on-january-6/

;-)

[Don Bessee]

Hey how about a little piling on, crickets from the ponytail of ignorance -

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/january-6-committee-credibility-implodes-after-hutchinson-testimony/

;-)

[Scott O]

Ah, c'mon now boys - poor ol Paul is trying to have some 'us' time with his Ann Coulter action doll while watching the hearings. These hearings don't even rise to the level of a Kangaroo Kourt, but it's all Paul has left with his addiction to TDS.
'Bombshell' testimony is just total hearsay BS.
Not the hearings nor the SCOTUS ruling on abortion will save the Dems. Pocketbook issues trump most everything. And the Dems insistence that everything is wonderful is grinding glass into the wound.
The funniest thing I've read today is the whisper campaign to get Our Gal back into the race.
Come to think of it - who else could the Dems run?

[Don Bessee]

Talk about a total disaster for the rinos on j6 cmte -

Sources with ABC News also confirmed that “Herschmann had previously told the committee that he had penned the note.”

Cheney displayed a note today that Cassidy Hutchinson claimed to have written, except White House lawyer Eric Herschmann had already told the committee that he wrote the note in question. pic.twitter.com/77Av0sLaRe

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) June 29, 2022

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/former-white-house-lawyer-disputes-hutchinsons-claim-handwritten-letter/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/fox-news-falls-for-cassidy-hutchinson-hoax-testimony/

;-)

[Bill Tozer]

Will Americans Ever Trust The Media Again? — I&I/TIPP Poll

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/07/06/will-americans-ever-trust-the-media-again-ii-tipp-poll/

The enemy of the people?

[Bill Tozer]

Dems’ January 6th Committee Is Quietly Collaborating With The ‘Left’s Top Censor’: REPORT

https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/06/left-wing-j6-committee-splc-democrats/