n February 16, 2018, special counsel Robert Mueller's indictments of 13 Russian agents for interference in the 2016 U.S. election became the focus of several news outlets. While each is working with the same sources of information (the 37-page indictment itself, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's Friday afternoon press conference, President Donald J. Trump's tweets in response to the news, etc.), this has not made for carbon copy articles across outlets. This essay will look at three news sources, specifically the left-leaning The Huffington Post, the centrist Reuters and the right-leaning Breitbart News, reporting on the indictments on Friday. The aim is to explore the similarities and the differences in these articles on the same topic, analyzing how those differences influence our understandings.
The Huffington Post's reporting feels quickly feels leftist, with the headline "Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Details Foreign Efforts To Boost Trump, Harm Clinton." While not inaccurate given the details within the indictment’s text, Reuters's headline "U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump" feels less like a specific "Trump vs. Clinton" narrative. The text within calls the indictment a "massive blow to Trump and his supporters on Capitol Hill, who for months have tried to undermine Mueller’s investigation" (Reilly, Schulberg, and Levine). They later refer to Tump's Twitter response which further denied allegations of collusion as him doubling down on this stance (Reilly et al., emphasis mine).
All these things on their own perhaps seem minor, but lacing them throughout the article arguably paints a picture of a disagreeable Trump administration and its supporters being combative towards both Mueller and Clinton. Whether or not this is true, this slant makes The Huffington Post's reporting less objective and feels as though there's perhaps a hidden (or sub-conscious) agenda to draw the ire of Clinton supporters towards Trump.
Not to pick solely on The Huffington Post; if Reilly and company's reporting seems to have a hidden agenda, Breitbart's reporting feels more explicit. Matthew Boyle's article conjures specific imagery of a militant special counsel with the headline "Mueller Drops Hammer with Indictment of 13 Russians in Election Meddling Conspiracy" (notably still referring to it as a conspiracy, despite the evidence). In contrast to The Huffington Post, Breitbart states "While Trump is correct on that note that this indictment does not demonstrate collusion between his campaign and the Russians, the indictment does once and for all clearly demonstrate that the Russians engaged in a sophisticated effort to influence U.S. political events in 2016" (Boyle). Calling this tweet correct seems biased and deliberate. Any less discerning reader or anyone scanning the article could see the phrases "Trump," "vindicated," and "correct" within the first two paragraphs. Breitbart's reporting also refers to both the black vote and Muslim votes as part of "identity politics" and "fringes of American society" (Boyle), with "black" and "Muslim" curiously appearing more frequently in this article than the other two.
Breitbart's example implies absolution but is not willing to be so explicit. It goes further than its conservative contemporaries, such as The Blaze, The Daily Caller, and Fox News, but not as far as a site like Infowars. Adan Salazar's "Trump Cleared? Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Duped 'Unwitting' Trump Associates" claims that the indictment "appears to absolve the Trump campaign of having any knowledge of Russian election meddling.” On the left, I specifically chose to look at The Huffington Post because of the subtle digs towards Trump. In contrast to its contemporaries on the left, sites such as the left of center New York Times and more obviously liberal sites like Salon, Slate, and The Atlantic remain reserved and make The Huffington Post's coverage appear as passive-aggressive.
When compared with the two previous articles, Reuters's reporting appears to have far less bias to observe. In response to Trump's tweet, Reuter's calls it Trump's "most direct acknowledgement [sic] that Russia had meddled in the election, which he has frequently disputed" (Strobel, Volz, and Landay), noting the possibility of future investigation, similarly to Breitbart. There are no subtle digs, generalizations or any apparent spin either for or against Trump. When compared with The Huffington Post's more hyperbolic "massive blow" (Reilly et al.) comment, Reuters offers a similar but more careful line. "The surprise 37-page indictment could alter the divisive U.S. domestic debate over Russia’s meddling, undercutting some Republicans who, along with Trump, have attacked Mueller’s investigation" (Strobel et. al, emphasis mine). Reuters does later call this a blow to the White House, but contextualizes it and couples it with FBI disclosure that it had failed to act on information about Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz while it’s still recovering from accusations of Rob Porter’s domestic violence and a decline in U.S. stocks, in what amounts to a series of unfortunate events in recent history for the White House. While The Huffington Post’s comment seems singular, Reuters’s reporting offers evidence for a more cumulative effect.
Given the nature of Mueller's investigation, it's arguable that it's impossible to be truly non-partisan. The ultimate aim is to determine if there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. The result of its findings could be devastating in a two-party, pro-Trump or anti- Trump landscape for whoever they fail to favor. Despite that, I still felt the The Huffington Post and Breitbart articles both "took the bait” in the end, acting as echo chambers for their respective sides. The takeaway feels disappointingly predictable and not in the service of the information provided. While Reuters reporting is imperfect, it feels closest to the standard of objective journalism of the three.
Works Cited
Boyle, Matthew. "Mueller Drops Hammer with Indictment of 13 Russians in Election Meddling Conspiracy." Breitbart. Breitbart News Network, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
Reilly, Ryan J., Jessica Schulberg, and Sam Levine. "Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Details Efforts To Boost Trump." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
Salazar, Adan. "Trump Cleared? Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Duped 'Unwitting' Trump Associates." Infowars. Alex Jones, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.
Strobel, Warren, Dustin Volz, and Jonathan Landay. "U.S. Charges Russians with 2016 U.S. Election Tampering to Boost Trump." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
The Huffington Post's reporting feels quickly feels leftist, with the headline "Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Details Foreign Efforts To Boost Trump, Harm Clinton." While not inaccurate given the details within the indictment’s text, Reuters's headline "U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump" feels less like a specific "Trump vs. Clinton" narrative. The text within calls the indictment a "massive blow to Trump and his supporters on Capitol Hill, who for months have tried to undermine Mueller’s investigation" (Reilly, Schulberg, and Levine). They later refer to Tump's Twitter response which further denied allegations of collusion as him doubling down on this stance (Reilly et al., emphasis mine).
All these things on their own perhaps seem minor, but lacing them throughout the article arguably paints a picture of a disagreeable Trump administration and its supporters being combative towards both Mueller and Clinton. Whether or not this is true, this slant makes The Huffington Post's reporting less objective and feels as though there's perhaps a hidden (or sub-conscious) agenda to draw the ire of Clinton supporters towards Trump.
Not to pick solely on The Huffington Post; if Reilly and company's reporting seems to have a hidden agenda, Breitbart's reporting feels more explicit. Matthew Boyle's article conjures specific imagery of a militant special counsel with the headline "Mueller Drops Hammer with Indictment of 13 Russians in Election Meddling Conspiracy" (notably still referring to it as a conspiracy, despite the evidence). In contrast to The Huffington Post, Breitbart states "While Trump is correct on that note that this indictment does not demonstrate collusion between his campaign and the Russians, the indictment does once and for all clearly demonstrate that the Russians engaged in a sophisticated effort to influence U.S. political events in 2016" (Boyle). Calling this tweet correct seems biased and deliberate. Any less discerning reader or anyone scanning the article could see the phrases "Trump," "vindicated," and "correct" within the first two paragraphs. Breitbart's reporting also refers to both the black vote and Muslim votes as part of "identity politics" and "fringes of American society" (Boyle), with "black" and "Muslim" curiously appearing more frequently in this article than the other two.
Breitbart's example implies absolution but is not willing to be so explicit. It goes further than its conservative contemporaries, such as The Blaze, The Daily Caller, and Fox News, but not as far as a site like Infowars. Adan Salazar's "Trump Cleared? Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Duped 'Unwitting' Trump Associates" claims that the indictment "appears to absolve the Trump campaign of having any knowledge of Russian election meddling.” On the left, I specifically chose to look at The Huffington Post because of the subtle digs towards Trump. In contrast to its contemporaries on the left, sites such as the left of center New York Times and more obviously liberal sites like Salon, Slate, and The Atlantic remain reserved and make The Huffington Post's coverage appear as passive-aggressive.
When compared with the two previous articles, Reuters's reporting appears to have far less bias to observe. In response to Trump's tweet, Reuter's calls it Trump's "most direct acknowledgement [sic] that Russia had meddled in the election, which he has frequently disputed" (Strobel, Volz, and Landay), noting the possibility of future investigation, similarly to Breitbart. There are no subtle digs, generalizations or any apparent spin either for or against Trump. When compared with The Huffington Post's more hyperbolic "massive blow" (Reilly et al.) comment, Reuters offers a similar but more careful line. "The surprise 37-page indictment could alter the divisive U.S. domestic debate over Russia’s meddling, undercutting some Republicans who, along with Trump, have attacked Mueller’s investigation" (Strobel et. al, emphasis mine). Reuters does later call this a blow to the White House, but contextualizes it and couples it with FBI disclosure that it had failed to act on information about Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz while it’s still recovering from accusations of Rob Porter’s domestic violence and a decline in U.S. stocks, in what amounts to a series of unfortunate events in recent history for the White House. While The Huffington Post’s comment seems singular, Reuters’s reporting offers evidence for a more cumulative effect.
Given the nature of Mueller's investigation, it's arguable that it's impossible to be truly non-partisan. The ultimate aim is to determine if there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. The result of its findings could be devastating in a two-party, pro-Trump or anti- Trump landscape for whoever they fail to favor. Despite that, I still felt the The Huffington Post and Breitbart articles both "took the bait” in the end, acting as echo chambers for their respective sides. The takeaway feels disappointingly predictable and not in the service of the information provided. While Reuters reporting is imperfect, it feels closest to the standard of objective journalism of the three.
Works Cited
Boyle, Matthew. "Mueller Drops Hammer with Indictment of 13 Russians in Election Meddling Conspiracy." Breitbart. Breitbart News Network, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
Reilly, Ryan J., Jessica Schulberg, and Sam Levine. "Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Details Efforts To Boost Trump." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
Salazar, Adan. "Trump Cleared? Mueller Indicts 13 Russians, Duped 'Unwitting' Trump Associates." Infowars. Alex Jones, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.
Strobel, Warren, Dustin Volz, and Jonathan Landay. "U.S. Charges Russians with 2016 U.S. Election Tampering to Boost Trump." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 16 Feb. 2018. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment