A simple example of how journalism standards have fallen.
On display in a story from the Associated Press, or as I like to call them in service to accuracy Associated Propagandists, is how the ignorant as well as those who do not read carefully are duped by Leftist media.
You would think that such an accusatory story would require the writer to get quotes from the “experts” alluded to in the subhead that would include specific examples of legislatures making it harder to vote. And yet there are no examples given of laws passed by the states criticized that actually make it harder for any person to vote, or register to vote, than it was before the 2020 elections under the laws of those states.
What you get in the AP story substituting for fact is hyperbole such as this: “Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights and elections counsel at the Brennan Center, called the new wave of voting laws “an unprecedented assault on voting rights” as well as “a voter suppression effort we haven’t seen since the likes of Jim Crow.””
Voter suppression we haven’t seen since the Jim Crow era?
Pardon me if I wince.
The Democrat created and enforced Jim Crow era include such things as Democratic Party primary elections open only to white voters; literacy tests; poll taxes, and; much more ugliness which often included violence to keep people from the polls. It is a bit beyond the realm of proportion to claim that such things as maybe having an hour or two less of early voting over two weeks; having to show identification to prove you are the voter you claim to be, or; having to actually put your own ballot-by-mail in the U.S. Mail yourself equate to the Jim Crow era of Democrat rule.
It is a bit beyond the realm of proportion to claim that such things as maybe having an hour or two less of early voting over two weeks; having to show identification to prove you are the voter you claim to be, or; having to actually put your own ballot-by-mail in the U.S. Mail yourself equate to the Jim Crow era of Democrat rule.
No doubt if confronted the AP writer, one Horus Alas who is identified as a “master’s graduate of the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, will claim that he I did include specific examples of voter restrictions being passed by “Republican-led state legislatures” and that will likely be as much due the falling standards of writing at U. of M. as it is to any Leftwing bias.
Horus Alas might refer to his opening paragraph as an example: “The Supreme Court issued a new ruling on Thursday that upheld two Arizona laws restricting organizations’ ability to collect mail-in ballots as well as invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Critics say the court’s decision further erodes landmark voting protections codified by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
But you should note that the restrictive law mentioned applies not to voters but to organizations that collecting ballots to bolster their cause and not to actual voters. That restriction is upon organizations after the action of voting and does not restrict the voter from depositing his own ballot in the mail or with local election authorities. It does nothing to restrict the right or ease of an individual voter to vote.
“What about invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct,” you may ask. “Surely that’s a restriction on voting?
Yes, it is a restriction on voting but it is not in any way a new restriction on voting. Voters are all restricted to the choices on their ballot based on geography and just as Texans cannot cast ballots in Iowa to award that state’s electors for a president Texans might prefer, someone in Maricopa County, Arizona cannot have their vote counted when voting for a county or a state official in a precinct in which he does not reside and is not registered to vote. There is no action here that makes it harder for anyone to vote nor is there anything novel in the restriction.
The story is an example of lazy and dishonest reporting by stating that “experts,” plural, are making a claim when the story only quotes one “expert” who works for the Brennan Center which itself is in no way known to be an actor in the world of partisan politics with no Left/Right agenda.
The other broad claim made by the sole “expert” in the story is nothing but a broad assertion that “specific provisions in these laws… can have a negative impact on voter turnout” without providing any actual example of how the mechanisms would work to that end or evidence that such things, as ill-defined as they are, actually make it harder for someone to vote than it was with the laws on the books prior to November of 2020.
In the last paragraph the so-called “expert” whom the writer relied upon for entire piece, and somehow awarded plural status in the subhead, mentions that Texas’ Senate Bill 7 reduced the hours of early voting on Sunday mornings which could be construed as a very minor, given the long hours daily of early voting for two weeks, restriction but that bill doesn’t count as it did not pass the legislature and the story purports to be about laws passed in 2021.
The story is an example of lazy and dishonest reporting by stating that “experts,” plural, are making a claim when the story only quotes one “expert” who works for the Brennan Center which itself is in no way known to be an actor in the world of partisan politics with no Left/Right agenda.
Second, the story shows the decline in standards which were once enforced by red pen toting editors who would, no matter their political bent, point out to the writer that the story makes claims that its content does not support. “If you are going to claim laws were passed that restrict voting, you need to cite the laws and how such restrict voting,” the editor would have snapped while already looking down at a desk working on the next story ready for the red pen.
Pratt: How the ignorant are duped by media. (Election integrity laws.)
A simple example of how journalism standards have fallen.
The Headline: “Report: Republican-Led State Legislatures Pass Dozens of Restrictive Voting Laws in 2021.” The Subhead: “States with Republican legislatures have passed waves of new laws making it harder for constituents to vote in response to the 2020 election, experts say.”
You would think that such an accusatory story would require the writer to get quotes from the “experts” alluded to in the subhead that would include specific examples of legislatures making it harder to vote. And yet there are no examples given of laws passed by the states criticized that actually make it harder for any person to vote, or register to vote, than it was before the 2020 elections under the laws of those states.
What you get in the AP story substituting for fact is hyperbole such as this: “Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights and elections counsel at the Brennan Center, called the new wave of voting laws “an unprecedented assault on voting rights” as well as “a voter suppression effort we haven’t seen since the likes of Jim Crow.””
Voter suppression we haven’t seen since the Jim Crow era?
Pardon me if I wince.
The Democrat created and enforced Jim Crow era include such things as Democratic Party primary elections open only to white voters; literacy tests; poll taxes, and; much more ugliness which often included violence to keep people from the polls. It is a bit beyond the realm of proportion to claim that such things as maybe having an hour or two less of early voting over two weeks; having to show identification to prove you are the voter you claim to be, or; having to actually put your own ballot-by-mail in the U.S. Mail yourself equate to the Jim Crow era of Democrat rule.
It is a bit beyond the realm of proportion to claim that such things as maybe having an hour or two less of early voting over two weeks; having to show identification to prove you are the voter you claim to be, or; having to actually put your own ballot-by-mail in the U.S. Mail yourself equate to the Jim Crow era of Democrat rule.
No doubt if confronted the AP writer, one Horus Alas who is identified as a “master’s graduate of the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, will claim that he I did include specific examples of voter restrictions being passed by “Republican-led state legislatures” and that will likely be as much due the falling standards of writing at U. of M. as it is to any Leftwing bias.
Horus Alas might refer to his opening paragraph as an example: “The Supreme Court issued a new ruling on Thursday that upheld two Arizona laws restricting organizations’ ability to collect mail-in ballots as well as invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Critics say the court’s decision further erodes landmark voting protections codified by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
But you should note that the restrictive law mentioned applies not to voters but to organizations that collecting ballots to bolster their cause and not to actual voters. That restriction is upon organizations after the action of voting and does not restrict the voter from depositing his own ballot in the mail or with local election authorities. It does nothing to restrict the right or ease of an individual voter to vote.
“What about invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct,” you may ask. “Surely that’s a restriction on voting?
Yes, it is a restriction on voting but it is not in any way a new restriction on voting. Voters are all restricted to the choices on their ballot based on geography and just as Texans cannot cast ballots in Iowa to award that state’s electors for a president Texans might prefer, someone in Maricopa County, Arizona cannot have their vote counted when voting for a county or a state official in a precinct in which he does not reside and is not registered to vote. There is no action here that makes it harder for anyone to vote nor is there anything novel in the restriction.
The story is an example of lazy and dishonest reporting by stating that “experts,” plural, are making a claim when the story only quotes one “expert” who works for the Brennan Center which itself is in no way known to be an actor in the world of partisan politics with no Left/Right agenda.
The other broad claim made by the sole “expert” in the story is nothing but a broad assertion that “specific provisions in these laws… can have a negative impact on voter turnout” without providing any actual example of how the mechanisms would work to that end or evidence that such things, as ill-defined as they are, actually make it harder for someone to vote than it was with the laws on the books prior to November of 2020.
In the last paragraph the so-called “expert” whom the writer relied upon for entire piece, and somehow awarded plural status in the subhead, mentions that Texas’ Senate Bill 7 reduced the hours of early voting on Sunday mornings which could be construed as a very minor, given the long hours daily of early voting for two weeks, restriction but that bill doesn’t count as it did not pass the legislature and the story purports to be about laws passed in 2021.
The story is an example of lazy and dishonest reporting by stating that “experts,” plural, are making a claim when the story only quotes one “expert” who works for the Brennan Center which itself is in no way known to be an actor in the world of partisan politics with no Left/Right agenda.
Second, the story shows the decline in standards which were once enforced by red pen toting editors who would, no matter their political bent, point out to the writer that the story makes claims that its content does not support. “If you are going to claim laws were passed that restrict voting, you need to cite the laws and how such restrict voting,” the editor would have snapped while already looking down at a desk working on the next story ready for the red pen.