Finding articles void of political biases is a rare find, and this particular author, R. N. Patterson followed his command post to write an "anti-Trump for conservatives" type of article. The Bulwark's rating given by Media Bias/Fact Check can be found here:
The Bulwark - Media Bias/Fact Check
This is far from the first type of political persuasion piece that's been written to sway opinion as you know. The use of emotional appeal, loaded words, and other tactics are used by various political media writers of various parties. Media Bias/Fact Check writes that: "In review, The Bulwark has essentially started where the Weekly Standard left off, which is as a conservative publisher who does not support President Trump. Please do not confuse this with a left-biased source. They are a right-leaning source and reject most progressive and mainstream democratic ideals." This is quite a contrast from what The Bulwark says under its About section which reads as follows:
The Bulwark is a news network launched in 2018 dedicated to providing political analysis and reporting free from the constraints of partisan loyalties or tribal prejudices. LOL... Sorry, my own bias against BS coming through there
An example from Patterson's piece that contains loaded words due to political bias is the following: "Unsurprisingly,
a CNN poll found that 63 percent of Americans believed the president had acted āirresponsiblyā in āhandling the risk of coronavirus infection to the people who have been around him.ā His poll numbers slipped further, fresh confirmation of Trumpās distinctive gifts." I already know you're smart enough to determine which words are loaded and which words are the author's opinion, not factual. I would love to read the questionnaire cited to check for wording and options for the "irresponsibly" answer. Those polled might have been given legitimate alternatives, or, the other options could have been bogus choices such as: Trump is always right, Trump should have gone to more rallies without masks, or I hate all people whose surname starts with a T. Hard to know with polling unless one reviews it word by word.
A political poll often has a political agenda. Certainly partisans who compose a political poll certainly have agendas. What kind of flack does a person, who works for a left or right leaning polling firm, receive when the results are not what they wanted? Are all poll results released or is it an option to go out and get a "better result"?
The polls are overwhelmingly inaccurate but that's likely not a surprise to you or any other reader on this forum. There are a few polling orgs that actually do a good job with polling large, cross-sectional voters of different economic situations, different locations, different age groups, etc. to give a better representation of potential voters. That still doesn't mean, however, that a poll's results are valid. The way questions are worded, having questions with only yes or no answers, forcing choices that are almost ludicrous, the way they interpret the results can also be tainted. I will spare you and stop here. I'm not familiar with CNN's style of wording political polling questions, but I would love to be informed
Hey, by the way! Where are these mysterious pollsters and why don't they ever call me? Oh wait that's right, I ignore all polling type of calls, usually around dinner, and who knows how they tweak the questions to obtain a specific response as I eluded to earlier. It would be pretty useless to get into a debate about biased questions with one of these callers, although thinking more about that I might answer next time-lol
For the record, I'm not inferring that political polling is inherently evil, but conducting a poll while having a political agenda makes most a waste of time and effort. We all have agendas whether we realize it or not, and certainly good journalists and article writers (who actually believe they are good journalists but far from the case) have some type of "agenda". They just shouldn't conduct a bogus poll and expect people to think the findings are valid.
I'll close here with a question, just for fun
A person graduates from a top college with honors, has exceptional credentials, presents well, and has a likeable personality. I'll use CNN as the potential employer since it was quoted in the aforementioned article. So, can we assume that this person would be hired (scratch that, I'll go one further and say be considered for the job) if he or she said during the interview, when asked for their off-the-cuff honest answer, about the upcoming election: "I am personally supporting Trump, but as a good newscaster I would never mix my own opinions, nor anyone else's, when giving a factual report." I'll go out of a limb here and say they came up with a "better" candidate. No doubt that person would fare much better interviewing with FOX. I have to wonder how far networks actually go in this realm, considering the legal aspect of hiring the most qualified candidate. If anyone can enlighten me I will appreciate it
I'm betting that once a person accepts a mainstream media position, they're instantly hamstrung at the get-go or soon out looking for another job. Do some journalists, who are dedicated to getting at the truth, accept true journalist endeavors at lower pay just to avoid the required mainstream mud-slinging? Hats off to true journalists who fight the good fight, stick to the facts, and do not attempt to tell the audience WHAT to think about any given report! These article writers do little in the way of reducing the "US versus Them" mentality (my main beef) that's permeated our society since its inception. The idea that "You MUST take a side as a reporter of the news, and that you cannot report facts without taking a side is...rubbish.
thebulwark.com
