On Sunday, August 13, 2017, Breitbart published an article by DOJ Correspondent Ian Mason and Deputy Political Editor Amanda House, “Alt-Right Activists Condemn Violence, Dispute Mainstream Account,” that covered the events in Charlottesville, VA, that had unfolded over that weekend. On the surface, Mason and House's reporting is not wildly dissimilar from the rest of the news cycle that pervaded that weekend in August. Despite the relatively basic facts, some of their decisions raise red flags. Specifically, the decisions that relate to their choice of sources and what information they have chosen to include or omit merit skepticism. This essay aims to examine those red flags and the implications they have.
When I first encountered this article, I was immediately skeptical of what the authors were attempting to communicate. They begin by stating that “conflicts with mainstream media and politicians” (Mason and House) had emerged over the weekend, with mainstream media refusing to cover left-wing and right-wing violence. In response to Governor Terry McAuliffe's press conference in the aftermath of the events, they suggest “the implication was clear that the violence was an unavoidable result of far-right white identity political groups being allowed to hold a rally" (Mason and House). What strikes me as peculiar is the use of another earlier Breitbart article written by the notably right-wing Raheem Kassam echoing the same views. So Mason and House, writing for Breitbart, are using another Breitbart article as their evidence for "conflicts with mainstream media.”
But beyond what is a bit of a journalistic bubble, the real issue is in Mason and House (and Kassem) asking for equal coverage of violence on both sides. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in The Elements of Journalism that "balance can lead to distortion"(108). "As journalists know, often there are two sides to a story. And sometimes balancing them equally is not a true reflection of reality" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 108). The Breitbart writers conflate groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa with white supremacy groups, eliminating all nuance and motivation between them and painting a picture of all as extremist, creating what Kovach and Rosenstiel call "false equivalencies, the idea that different perspectives have equal moral weight" (110). Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, expresses concern of this false equivalency, stating “I don’t want to give moral equivalence to the two sides because one side is fighting against white supremacy. On the Antifa side, they’ve never murdered anyone but there have been many murders done by white supremacists, so we have to be concerned about that movement” (Palma).
Mason and House then cite A.C. Thompson's article for ProPublica and use it substantially throughout the Breitbart article to detail police conduct, which Thompson describes as a "largely laissez faire approach, allowing white supremacists and counter-protesters to physically battle.” They use Thompson’s writing as a source of evidence for the police's shortcomings, which "exacerbated, rather than controlled, the violence surrounding the rally and the counter-protests." Simultaneously, they use it to make a case for their headline, stating that Thompson's report "takes a similar stance to McAuliffe as to the moral culpability for the fracas around Emancipation Park" (Mason and House).
They then include a hyperlink within the text “ProPublica is a George Soros-funded investigative journalism non-profit. A.C. Thompson is, according to his bio, a reporter ‘covering the rise in hate crimes in America.’” This links to an opinion piece by Dan Gainor for Fox News, which describes ProPublica's reporting as "thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers" but calls "the topics laughably left-wing." The rest of Gainor's article lambasts Soros and left-wing media for lacking neutrality and transparency while pushing a liberal agenda, a sentiment that again echoes the Mason and House’s “mainstream account” headline. With the Gainor filter applied to their writing, is it more of an attempt to undermine Thompson and ProPublica? Are we now supposed to read Thompson’s reporting as “laughably left-wing,” to be taken with a grain of salt due to its liberal bias? The inclusion and endorsement of Kassam and Gainor's writing allow the authors to include more direct criticism of McAuliffe, Thompson, and anyone with a perceived liberal agenda while maintaining more measured, distanced writing. Mason and House are arguably attacking by proxy through these links. The result feels manipulative.
Speaking of manipulation, Mason and House pick and choose parts of the ProPublica piece where it either supports their arguments or can make their targets look bad. However, they omit a large part of ProPublica's reporting and fail to provide the same balance of left and right violence they seek. Thompson's report indicates that white supremacists "had spent months openly planning for war" in Charlottesville, with neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and racist podcast The Right Stuff suggesting protesters come armed with shields, pepper spray, and guns. "The white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police" (Thompson). With this additional information, the framing of the story changes. While Manson and House's reporting quotes Unite the Right organizer Jonathan Kessler and four anonymous sources who all suggest they did not incite violence, it seems hard to believe that those who do not intend for violence arrive heavily weaponized and armored.
One particularly staggering claim from “George” states, “We initiated, from what I saw, literally none of the violence. I would say, of the violence initated [sic] 98 percent Antifa, two percent ours, and that’s just out of margin of error" (Mason and House). However, it seems unlikely that leftists would be responsible for nearly all the violence. Marilyn Mayo explains that statistics found that of the extremist killings over the last year, right-wing extremists were responsible for 74% versus the 2% of those deaths at the hands of left-wing extremists (Palma).
Perhaps most egregious is Mason and House's reliance on these four anonymous sources for statements like this. The direct quotes of these four individuals combined make up over a third of the article, taking up over 1,000 words of a 3,000-word report. At this point, the reporting becomes highly exaggerated and unbelievable, with the sources proving every point the authors make.
Kovach and Rosenstiel write about the Spirit of Transparency, stating “the only way to level with people is to reveal as much as possible about your sources and methods. How do you know what you know? Who are your sources? How direct is their knowledge? What biases might they have? Are there conflicting accounts? What don’t we know?” (114)
We know conflict exists given the headline of the article and the nature of the events in Charlottesville. We know bias is present, as ”George" and "Sean" are "self-described Alt-Right activists" (Mason and House) which would also answer the question of motive to mislead (Kovach and Rosenstiel 134). "Andrew" and "The Finn," the other two sources, also make comments that suggest a lean towards the right. Their knowledge is presumably from being eyewitnesses present at the event. But who are these people and why were they chosen? Why are they anonymous? The authors have chosen to rely substantially on the weakest part of the direct evidence hierarchy. They have made the decision not to reveal anything about their methods or these sources. The onus is on the reader to presume why.
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s writing on using anonymous sources says that "audiences must invest more trust in the news provider that the source is believable" (133). The only option remaining is to put faith in Breitbart and trust that Mason and House are telling us the truth. Politifact's scorecard on Breitbart finds 80% of their reporting to be false (Politifact). Perhaps these four men are real; Mason and House's reporting falls into the 20% that is true. Alternatively, their second act could simply be Alt-Right fanfiction. The use of these sources that cannot be verified or corroborated combined with that Politifact’s score makes the odds seem stacked against Mason and House. Given the sum of these red flags, I cannot consider this source of news anything other than suspicious.
Works Cited
"Breitbart's File." PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2018.
Gainor, Dan. "Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations?"Fox News. FOX News Network, 11 May 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2018.
Kassam, Raheem. "Gov. McAuliffe in Charlottesville ‘No Place in America’ for Alt-Right, Refuses to Condemn AntiFa" Breitbart . Breitbart News Network, 12 Aug. 2017. Web. 28 Feb. 2018.
Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. The Elements of Journalism. Three Rivers Press, 2014.
Mason, Ian and Amanda House. "Alt-Right Activists Condemn Violence, Dispute Mainstream Account." Breitbart . Breitbart News Network, 13 Aug. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2018.
Palma, Bethania. "Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?" Snopes.com . Snopes, 19 Aug. 2017. Web. 29 Feb. 2018.
Thompson, A.C. "Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville." ProPublica . Pro Publica Inc., 12 Aug. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2018.
When I first encountered this article, I was immediately skeptical of what the authors were attempting to communicate. They begin by stating that “conflicts with mainstream media and politicians” (Mason and House) had emerged over the weekend, with mainstream media refusing to cover left-wing and right-wing violence. In response to Governor Terry McAuliffe's press conference in the aftermath of the events, they suggest “the implication was clear that the violence was an unavoidable result of far-right white identity political groups being allowed to hold a rally" (Mason and House). What strikes me as peculiar is the use of another earlier Breitbart article written by the notably right-wing Raheem Kassam echoing the same views. So Mason and House, writing for Breitbart, are using another Breitbart article as their evidence for "conflicts with mainstream media.”
But beyond what is a bit of a journalistic bubble, the real issue is in Mason and House (and Kassem) asking for equal coverage of violence on both sides. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in The Elements of Journalism that "balance can lead to distortion"(108). "As journalists know, often there are two sides to a story. And sometimes balancing them equally is not a true reflection of reality" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 108). The Breitbart writers conflate groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa with white supremacy groups, eliminating all nuance and motivation between them and painting a picture of all as extremist, creating what Kovach and Rosenstiel call "false equivalencies, the idea that different perspectives have equal moral weight" (110). Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, expresses concern of this false equivalency, stating “I don’t want to give moral equivalence to the two sides because one side is fighting against white supremacy. On the Antifa side, they’ve never murdered anyone but there have been many murders done by white supremacists, so we have to be concerned about that movement” (Palma).
Mason and House then cite A.C. Thompson's article for ProPublica and use it substantially throughout the Breitbart article to detail police conduct, which Thompson describes as a "largely laissez faire approach, allowing white supremacists and counter-protesters to physically battle.” They use Thompson’s writing as a source of evidence for the police's shortcomings, which "exacerbated, rather than controlled, the violence surrounding the rally and the counter-protests." Simultaneously, they use it to make a case for their headline, stating that Thompson's report "takes a similar stance to McAuliffe as to the moral culpability for the fracas around Emancipation Park" (Mason and House).
They then include a hyperlink within the text “ProPublica is a George Soros-funded investigative journalism non-profit. A.C. Thompson is, according to his bio, a reporter ‘covering the rise in hate crimes in America.’” This links to an opinion piece by Dan Gainor for Fox News, which describes ProPublica's reporting as "thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers" but calls "the topics laughably left-wing." The rest of Gainor's article lambasts Soros and left-wing media for lacking neutrality and transparency while pushing a liberal agenda, a sentiment that again echoes the Mason and House’s “mainstream account” headline. With the Gainor filter applied to their writing, is it more of an attempt to undermine Thompson and ProPublica? Are we now supposed to read Thompson’s reporting as “laughably left-wing,” to be taken with a grain of salt due to its liberal bias? The inclusion and endorsement of Kassam and Gainor's writing allow the authors to include more direct criticism of McAuliffe, Thompson, and anyone with a perceived liberal agenda while maintaining more measured, distanced writing. Mason and House are arguably attacking by proxy through these links. The result feels manipulative.
Speaking of manipulation, Mason and House pick and choose parts of the ProPublica piece where it either supports their arguments or can make their targets look bad. However, they omit a large part of ProPublica's reporting and fail to provide the same balance of left and right violence they seek. Thompson's report indicates that white supremacists "had spent months openly planning for war" in Charlottesville, with neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and racist podcast The Right Stuff suggesting protesters come armed with shields, pepper spray, and guns. "The white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police" (Thompson). With this additional information, the framing of the story changes. While Manson and House's reporting quotes Unite the Right organizer Jonathan Kessler and four anonymous sources who all suggest they did not incite violence, it seems hard to believe that those who do not intend for violence arrive heavily weaponized and armored.
One particularly staggering claim from “George” states, “We initiated, from what I saw, literally none of the violence. I would say, of the violence initated [sic] 98 percent Antifa, two percent ours, and that’s just out of margin of error" (Mason and House). However, it seems unlikely that leftists would be responsible for nearly all the violence. Marilyn Mayo explains that statistics found that of the extremist killings over the last year, right-wing extremists were responsible for 74% versus the 2% of those deaths at the hands of left-wing extremists (Palma).
Perhaps most egregious is Mason and House's reliance on these four anonymous sources for statements like this. The direct quotes of these four individuals combined make up over a third of the article, taking up over 1,000 words of a 3,000-word report. At this point, the reporting becomes highly exaggerated and unbelievable, with the sources proving every point the authors make.
Kovach and Rosenstiel write about the Spirit of Transparency, stating “the only way to level with people is to reveal as much as possible about your sources and methods. How do you know what you know? Who are your sources? How direct is their knowledge? What biases might they have? Are there conflicting accounts? What don’t we know?” (114)
We know conflict exists given the headline of the article and the nature of the events in Charlottesville. We know bias is present, as ”George" and "Sean" are "self-described Alt-Right activists" (Mason and House) which would also answer the question of motive to mislead (Kovach and Rosenstiel 134). "Andrew" and "The Finn," the other two sources, also make comments that suggest a lean towards the right. Their knowledge is presumably from being eyewitnesses present at the event. But who are these people and why were they chosen? Why are they anonymous? The authors have chosen to rely substantially on the weakest part of the direct evidence hierarchy. They have made the decision not to reveal anything about their methods or these sources. The onus is on the reader to presume why.
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s writing on using anonymous sources says that "audiences must invest more trust in the news provider that the source is believable" (133). The only option remaining is to put faith in Breitbart and trust that Mason and House are telling us the truth. Politifact's scorecard on Breitbart finds 80% of their reporting to be false (Politifact). Perhaps these four men are real; Mason and House's reporting falls into the 20% that is true. Alternatively, their second act could simply be Alt-Right fanfiction. The use of these sources that cannot be verified or corroborated combined with that Politifact’s score makes the odds seem stacked against Mason and House. Given the sum of these red flags, I cannot consider this source of news anything other than suspicious.
Works Cited
"Breitbart's File." PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2018.
Gainor, Dan. "Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations?"Fox News. FOX News Network, 11 May 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2018.
Kassam, Raheem. "Gov. McAuliffe in Charlottesville ‘No Place in America’ for Alt-Right, Refuses to Condemn AntiFa" Breitbart . Breitbart News Network, 12 Aug. 2017. Web. 28 Feb. 2018.
Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. The Elements of Journalism. Three Rivers Press, 2014.
Mason, Ian and Amanda House. "Alt-Right Activists Condemn Violence, Dispute Mainstream Account." Breitbart . Breitbart News Network, 13 Aug. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2018.
Palma, Bethania. "Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?" Snopes.com . Snopes, 19 Aug. 2017. Web. 29 Feb. 2018.
Thompson, A.C. "Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville." ProPublica . Pro Publica Inc., 12 Aug. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment