It has been a long while since I’ve perused the Associated Press Stylebook but there must be a section I never saw on reporting anything coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
If a ruling, by vote of the justices, is favorable to the Left the Stylebook must say to report it as “in a victory for x, the Supreme Court affirmed the blah, blah, blah.”
And if a ruling is displeasing to the Left the AP Stylebook must say report it as did the Associated Press this ruling late Tuesday evening: “A divided Supreme Court is blocking lower court rulings that ordered Texas to redraw some congressional and legislative districts.”
The next line, of course, read “The 5 to 4 order issued late Tuesday means the state almost certainly will hold elections next year in districts that were struck down as racially discriminatory.”
Fortunately in this case the five to four split is meaningless in that a majority, no matter how “divided” is the ruling at the Supreme Court.
So, Texas gets a reprieve for the moment from that odd panel of San Antonio activist judges who have chosen to monkey around with Texas redistricting for the better part of a decade, over and over. The press rarely tells you that the rulings of that bunch are mostly divided too.
Pay attention over a long period and you’ll learn how language is used to influence thinking. It is true the press largely calls rulings that support a perceived conservative position “divided” while leaving out the term that suggests non-finality in reporting rulings they like.
When is the last time you heard the AP or others say that Roe v. Wade was from a “divided” court? It was in fact a divided Court in a seven to two ruling and then the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that further upheld Roe was from a Court divided five to four.
When Texas wins, the Supreme Court is “divided”
If a ruling, by vote of the justices, is favorable to the Left the Stylebook must say to report it as “in a victory for x, the Supreme Court affirmed the blah, blah, blah.”
And if a ruling is displeasing to the Left the AP Stylebook must say report it as did the Associated Press this ruling late Tuesday evening: “A divided Supreme Court is blocking lower court rulings that ordered Texas to redraw some congressional and legislative districts.”
The next line, of course, read “The 5 to 4 order issued late Tuesday means the state almost certainly will hold elections next year in districts that were struck down as racially discriminatory.”
Fortunately in this case the five to four split is meaningless in that a majority, no matter how “divided” is the ruling at the Supreme Court.
So, Texas gets a reprieve for the moment from that odd panel of San Antonio activist judges who have chosen to monkey around with Texas redistricting for the better part of a decade, over and over. The press rarely tells you that the rulings of that bunch are mostly divided too.
Pay attention over a long period and you’ll learn how language is used to influence thinking. It is true the press largely calls rulings that support a perceived conservative position “divided” while leaving out the term that suggests non-finality in reporting rulings they like.
When is the last time you heard the AP or others say that Roe v. Wade was from a “divided” court? It was in fact a divided Court in a seven to two ruling and then the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that further upheld Roe was from a Court divided five to four.
It’s just something helpful to notice.