How do we maintain our democracy when Repulbicans have given up on democracy and now want authoritarianism? (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

It's hard to believe how far down the road we've gone towards authoritarianism. Republicans are not even trying to hide anymore. If they are able to recapture control of the House in 2022, I have serious concern about how much longer we'll be able to maintain our democracy. Just look at how far they're willing to go in the article below. How can we stop this speeding train towards authoritarianism and nationalism in the Republican party and get them to defend and support democracy once more?

Their polls found that after the election, a supermajority of Republicans backed Trump's efforts to overturn the results: 86% said his legal challenges were appropriate, 79% said they weren't confident in the national vote tally, and 68% said Trump really won. Another 54% said Trump should never concede, and a plurality said state legislatures should override the popular vote.
This set the stage for Trump, GOP lawmakers, and right-wing media outlets to continue pushing the lie that the election was "rigged," which Trump did yet again in a press release this week.


Additionally, only 34% of Trump voters said they would accept Biden as the legitimate president, according to the post-election polls. That pales in comparison to similar surveys conducted by Gallup after previous controversial elections -- 68% of Al Gore voters in 2000 accepted George W. Bush's legitimacy, and 76% of Hillary Clinton voters in 2016 accepted Trump's as president.
The organization was among the first to raise the alarm last summer about the potential for unprecedented political violence if the 2020 election was disputed -- warnings that became a reality with the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. They released the new polls as part of a series of reports about the manufactured "crisis of confidence" in US elections.

New polls show GOP willingness to subvert 2020 election

New polls released Thursday show just how far Republicans were willing to go to support then-President Donald Trump's unprecedented efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

www.cnn.com

An excellent podcast on how Hungary's democracy has fallen and the similarities between what Orban and his party have done and how Republicans are doing the same thing here in the US.

 

[SaintForLife]

No thank you

It depends how you mean it. The cable news networks? Probably not, but I don’t watch cable news to know for sure.

Actual news? Yes, absolutely. The problem is too many people take these cable networks as fact, and that’s just not what they’re about. They exist to discuss fact in a partisan manner. Facts aren’t partisan, it’s the presentation that is. Most of what I read comes from AP/Reuters/BBC/NPR, there’s not really bias in the reporting. However, when I listen to the NPR politics podcast, I can tell the hosts lean left. It’s up to the listener/viewer to cut through that, which is something we sorely lack in this country.

This “MSM”* fantasy has too many people not taking the time to look beyond their own confirmation biases.


*Fox is mainstream despite what they want to tell you

There is bias in all reporting although I would say that the AP and Reuters are probably the least biased. There's no bias in NPR's reporting? Not even close. NPR has a left wing bias, but its not as overt as CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias

Most reporters and editors are liberal — a now-dated Pew Research Center poll found that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by some 5 to 1, and that comports with my own anecdotal experi…

nypost.com

 

[SaintForLife]

As I said above... you've got it backwards. You need to show proof that making it harder to vote is necessary to protect election integrity, not the other way around. We already have ways to protect ballot integrity without the restrictions you support, so you need to prove why they are inadequate. Not the other way around.

This study finds that strict voter ID laws don't stop people from voting.

Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018​

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications. Our most demanding specification controls for state, year, and voter fixed effects, along with state and voter time-varying controls.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/advanc...3/qje/qjab019/6281042?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Also, the majority of the public supports requiring a photo ID to vote.

Support for requiring a photo ID to vote stands at 62% among Democrats, 87% among independents, and 91% among Republicans.

Public Supports Both Early Voting And Requiring Photo ID to Vote | Monmouth University Polling Institute

One-third remain convinced of 2020 election fraud

www.monmouth.edu

 

[JRad]

There is bias in all reporting although I would say that the AP and Reuters are probably the least biased. There's no bias in NPR's reporting? Not even close. NPR has a left wing bias, but its not as overt as CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I have to disagree with what that tweet is trying to portray. That‘s a comparison of a puff piece and a book review against a story they said they aren’t running because it’s nonsense. I don’t see those things as equivalent.

I’ll be honest, I just woke up and don’t feel like reading the other one, nor do I really feel strongly enough about NPR to argue it, so I will happily concede the point. My news widget is actually Reuters.

 

[V Chip]

This study finds that strict voter ID laws don't stop people from voting.

Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018​

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications. Our most demanding specification controls for state, year, and voter fixed effects, along with state and voter time-varying controls.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/advanc...3/qje/qjab019/6281042?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Did you read the PDF, or just the summary?

The summary alone mentions a few things that you leave out (emphasis mine):

• "However, the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities."
• {S}trict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived
• [O]ur findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

In the actual document it states:
"Focusing on voters living in adjacent counties across state borders, we can further rule out that the laws reduce their participation by more than 1.3 percentage points."

1.3 percentage points. That's pretty significant in elections where the final vote tally is less than 50,000 votes (like the Georgia Senate election for example). If the Georgia senate race general (with 3 candidates) was able to shave off only 1.45% of the vote for Ossof, Perdue would have won and there would have been no runoff.

The paper also states:
"The [Voter ID] laws are enforced more stringently against Blacks and Hispanics, who favor the Democratic Party and are less likely to hold an ID in the first place."

You don't say...

 

[V Chip]

Can anyone provide proof, actual proof, not 'might be' or 'could be' but an actual law that has passed in Georgia or any other state that is actual voter suppression?

I've done it before and you ignored it, but what the hell I'll do it again.

Georgia SB202. That's the law that is actual voter suppression.

It suppresses the vote in the following ways:

1. Limiting drop box locations and times. Decreasing the number of available drop boxes and limiting their hours (last election they were 24/7 and had many locations per county in almost all of the most populous counties -- even populous red counties like mine) suppresses votes. Capping the number of available drop boxes to 1 per 100,000 voters whereas before there was no limit. In the four most populous counties in Georgia (that all went to Biden, of course) the number of drop box locations is going from 111 to 23 max. Those four counties represent 33% of Georgia's entire population. Drop boxes were monitored 24/7 and not one instance of suspected voter fraud was found.
   
   Having drop boxes available helped the rate of rejected absentee ballots plummet from previous years. In 2020, only 0.6% of absentee ballots were rejected -- most of those because they were late. In prior elections, the rate of rejected absentee ballots was 4% in 2018 and 3% in 2016. With drop boxes, far fewer of a percent of absentee ballots came in late -- 0.3% were rejected because they were late which is about 20% of prior years late rejection percentages (~1.45%).
   
   And of course for the first time in Georgia, most absentee ballots in 2020 went for the Democratic Party candidates (nearly 2/3 went for Biden for instance) instead of normally going overwhelmingly in favor of the Republican Party candidates.
2. Requiring Voter ID for absentee ballots. Previously signature match was good enough (when absentee ballots were overwhelmingly in favor of Republican candidates). Now Voter ID is required to *request* a ballot (not even to actually vote but just requesting an absentee ballot). An estimated 3% of Georgia's eligible voters do not have government issued photo ID. That suppresses votes.
   
   An audit of signature match absentee votes in Cobb County of 15,000 votes found zero fraudulent signatures.
3. Early voting hours change; for most Georgia voters, the number of days/hours is less. In the general, the number of hours for most Georgia voters is the same or less (adding a second Saturday requirement adds a day for many rural counties that mostly went for Trump; for the populous counties they already had two Saturdays and Sundays in most cases, so the time remains the same or is less based on what days/hours are chosen in the next election).
   
   For the runoffs (if any), the hours shrink for everyone. in 2020, there were 3 weeks of early voting in the runoff. SB202 limits that to one. Additionally, runoffs have to occur 4 weeks after the initial election, leaving less time to prepare for the new election (printing ballots, lining up poll workers, testing equipment and procedures, and organizing for each side in the runoff). That suppresses votes.
4. It's illegal to hand out water or food in voting lines (basically). Election officials can have self-serve water locations if they so choose, but no outside groups can. In years past, the local churches and non-partisan groups (like Pizza to the Polls) were most of those groups who handed out water.
   
   In Georgia, almost every precinct that had lines of an hour or longer were in minority neighborhoods. The number of voters per precinct has grown in the metro Atlanta counties by 30-50% over just the past 2 elections. Long lines suppress votes. Long lines with less available refreshments suppress votes even more.
5. Earlier absentee vote deadlines, and later opening day for requesting absentee votes. That shortens the absentee voting period from 180 days to 78 days. That suppresses votes.
6. Voting Buses are no longer allowed. Fulton County used voting buses to have a mobile voting location, announced beforehand to be in certain places on certain days. SB202 banned the bus. 112,000+ voters utilized the voting buses last election. That suppresses votes. And it shouldn't be lost on anyone that Fulton county has the largest number of minority voters in the state.
7. Provisional ballots in an incorrect precinct will not be counted (unless after 5pm). If a voter goes to the wrong precinct for any reason (old precinct closed/merged, long lines at their main precinct, main precinct too far from job location, etc) then the whole ballot will be discarded. More than 3,300 ballots were cast provisionally at incorrect precincts in 2020. That suppresses votes.
8. Local governments cannot mail out ballots or absentee ballot request forms unless they are requested specifically by a voter. Some counties sent out absentee ballot requests forms to all active registered voters. This law bans that. Many groups sent out absentee ballot request forms to all kinds of people. Many people received numerous such forms from different groups, even after they had requested an absentee ballot. SB202 changes that (assuming an active court case doesn't overturn this portion of the law) so that organizations get fined if they send out a form to someone who has already requested an absentee ballot. That suppresses votes.
9. Any voter can challenge as many other voters' eligibility in the same county as they wish. That means one person could challenge every other voter's eligibility in their own county if they so desired. That suppresses votes (and wastes the time of election officials who have to investigate, and of any challenged voter who may have to prove their eligibility in a timely manner or have their vote discarded).
10. (These final two aren't in the law -- but *were* in the original bill that was introduced by the house and should be considered to judge the motivation for the law.)
    
    Original proposal tried to ban Sunday early voting. There was no reason given, but Sunday voting called "Souls to the Polls" were a very popular type of early voting by black churches in Georgia. This would obviously have suppressed votes and very specifically black votes. It was taken out after incredible pushback.
11. Original proposal tried to remove "no excuse" absentee ballots. Oddly, it was Republicans who championed and passed no-excuse absentee ballots (over the objections of some Democrats!) in 2005; they had never once been called into question until their candidate lost in 2020. This would have also suppressed votes, but was taken out after objections from all across the political spectrum.

So there you have it. You can never say that nobody has shown proof of a law that suppresses votes ever again; the only thing you can say is you disagree with the obvious suppression attempt and think it isn't suppression (although by definition, every one of the things listed presents obstacles to people being able to vote and thus suppress the vote).

 

[MT15]

Did you read the PDF, or just the summary?

The summary alone mentions a few things that you leave out (emphasis mine):

• "However, the likelihood that nonwhite voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities."
• {S}trict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived
• [O]ur findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms.

In the actual document it states:
"Focusing on voters living in adjacent counties across state borders, we can further rule out that the laws reduce their participation by more than 1.3 percentage points."

1.3 percentage points. That's pretty significant in elections where the final vote tally is less than 50,000 votes (like the Georgia Senate election for example). If the Georgia senate race general (with 3 candidates) was able to shave off only 1.45% of the vote for Ossof, Perdue would have won and there would have been no runoff.

The paper also states:
"The [Voter ID] laws are enforced more stringently against Blacks and Hispanics, who favor the Democratic Party and are less likely to hold an ID in the first place."

You don't say...

I believe this is the same piece I went over with him the last time he posted it, and he never responded to my points about the flaws (which are very similar to yours). It’s pretty frustrating when the discussion isn’t a two way street.

I was thinking about this whole “voter fraud” hysteria from Republicans and it’s pretty vexing to say the least.

For everyone who thinks these new laws are needed, here are some remarks from the Georgia Lt. Gov: (emphasis mine)

‘A top Georgia Republican said Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani's false claims of election fraud -- which were presented before state lawmakers -- created momentum for a package of voting rights restrictions that recently became state law.

"This is really the fallout from the 10 weeks of misinformation that flew in from former President Donald Trump," Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said on CNN's "New Day." "I went back over the weekend to really look at where this really started to gain momentum in the legislature, and it was when Rudy Giuliani showed up in a couple of committee rooms and spent hours spreading misinformation and sowing doubt across, you know, hours of testimony." ‘

This whole thing is a scheme to prevent more people from voting, IMO. We have seen another Georgia Republican admit out loud that they have to dampen turnout or they will lose more elections there. The lies from Trump and Rudy et al have just given the Republicans cover to cynically change laws so that voting will be more difficult.

There is zero rational pretext to do anything. American elections are pretty much the gold standard. IMO, Republicans at state levels are shell shocked at how Trump lost, and blame the record turnout. They know the claims of massive voter fraud are bull shirt of the highest order, but it gives them an excuse to tinker with elections to make it easier (in their opinion) for Republicans to win. At the same time, they are also trying to slide in new laws making it easier for state legislatures to overturn a valid election result if they don’t like the outcome.

It’s un-American, it’s cowardly (get out there and compete for votes instead of trying to rig the game). I hate what they are doing. I have voted in the past for whoever I thought would be best for the position regardless of party. My values align me better with the Democratic Party, but I have voted for plenty of Republicans over the years. No more. I won’t vote for another Republican for any reason whatsoever. For any position. This whole gambit disgusts me to my core.

 

[DaveXA]

I believe this is the same piece I went over with him the last time he posted it, and he never responded to my points about the flaws (which are very similar to yours). It’s pretty frustrating when the discussion isn’t a two way street.

I was thinking about this whole “voter fraud” hysteria from Republicans and it’s pretty vexing to say the least.

For everyone who thinks these new laws are needed, here are some remarks from the Georgia Lt. Gov: (emphasis mine)

‘A top Georgia Republican said Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani's false claims of election fraud -- which were presented before state lawmakers -- created momentum for a package of voting rights restrictions that recently became state law.

"This is really the fallout from the 10 weeks of misinformation that flew in from former President Donald Trump," Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said on CNN's "New Day." "I went back over the weekend to really look at where this really started to gain momentum in the legislature, and it was when Rudy Giuliani showed up in a couple of committee rooms and spent hours spreading misinformation and sowing doubt across, you know, hours of testimony." ‘

This whole thing is a scheme to prevent more people from voting, IMO. We have seen another Georgia Republican admit out loud that they have to dampen turnout or they will lose more elections there. The lies from Trump and Rudy et al have just given the Republicans cover to cynically change laws so that voting will be more difficult.

There is zero rational pretext to do anything. American elections are pretty much the gold standard. IMO, Republicans at state levels are shell shocked at how Trump lost, and blame the record turnout. They know the claims of massive voter fraud are bull shirt of the highest order, but it gives them an excuse to tinker with elections to make it easier (in their opinion) for Republicans to win. At the same time, they are also trying to slide in new laws making it easier for state legislatures to overturn a valid election result if they don’t like the outcome.

It’s un-American, it’s cowardly (get out there and compete for votes instead of trying to rig the game). I hate what they are doing. I have voted in the past for whoever I thought would be best for the position regardless of party. My values align me better with the Democratic Party, but I have voted for plenty of Republicans over the years. No more. I won’t vote for another Republican for any reason whatsoever. For any position. This whole gambit disgusts me to my core.

Well, Rudy's been disbarred from the NY bar for his comments, so there's that too. I'm no longer Republican, but I'd vote for one who has publicly disavowed Trumpism and the voter fraud BS if his/her other positions are reasonable. There are a few a might consider voting for. Barbara Comstock is one. Liz Cheney...maybe. Romney, probably. Kasich most likely. Foster, governor of Maryland is definitely on the short list. Not much else I can think of at the moment.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I've done it before and you ignored it, but what the hell I'll do it again.

Georgia SB202. That's the law that is actual voter suppression.

It suppresses the vote in the following ways:

1. Limiting drop box locations and times. Decreasing the number of available drop boxes and limiting their hours (last election they were 24/7 and had many locations per county in almost all of the most populous counties -- even populous red counties like mine) suppresses votes. Capping the number of available drop boxes to 1 per 100,000 voters whereas before there was no limit. In the four most populous counties in Georgia (that all went to Biden, of course) the number of drop box locations is going from 111 to 23 max. Those four counties represent 33% of Georgia's entire population. Drop boxes were monitored 24/7 and not one instance of suspected voter fraud was found.
   
   Having drop boxes available helped the rate of rejected absentee ballots plummet from previous years. In 2020, only 0.6% of absentee ballots were rejected -- most of those because they were late. In prior elections, the rate of rejected absentee ballots was 4% in 2018 and 3% in 2016. With drop boxes, far fewer of a percent of absentee ballots came in late -- 0.3% were rejected because they were late which is about 20% of prior years late rejection percentages (~1.45%).
   
   And of course for the first time in Georgia, most absentee ballots in 2020 went for the Democratic Party candidates (nearly 2/3 went for Biden for instance) instead of normally going overwhelmingly in favor of the Republican Party candidates.
2. Requiring Voter ID for absentee ballots. Previously signature match was good enough (when absentee ballots were overwhelmingly in favor of Republican candidates). Now Voter ID is required to *request* a ballot (not even to actually vote but just requesting an absentee ballot). An estimated 3% of Georgia's eligible voters do not have government issued photo ID. That suppresses votes.
   
   An audit of signature match absentee votes in Cobb County of 15,000 votes found zero fraudulent signatures.
3. Early voting hours change; for most Georgia voters, the number of days/hours is less. In the general, the number of hours for most Georgia voters is the same or less (adding a second Saturday requirement adds a day for many rural counties that mostly went for Trump; for the populous counties they already had two Saturdays and Sundays in most cases, so the time remains the same or is less based on what days/hours are chosen in the next election).
   
   For the runoffs (if any), the hours shrink for everyone. in 2020, there were 3 weeks of early voting in the runoff. SB202 limits that to one. Additionally, runoffs have to occur 4 weeks after the initial election, leaving less time to prepare for the new election (printing ballots, lining up poll workers, testing equipment and procedures, and organizing for each side in the runoff). That suppresses votes.
4. It's illegal to hand out water or food in voting lines (basically). Election officials can have self-serve water locations if they so choose, but no outside groups can. In years past, the local churches and non-partisan groups (like Pizza to the Polls) were most of those groups who handed out water.
   
   In Georgia, almost every precinct that had lines of an hour or longer were in minority neighborhoods. The number of voters per precinct has grown in the metro Atlanta counties by 30-50% over just the past 2 elections. Long lines suppress votes. Long lines with less available refreshments suppress votes even more.
5. Earlier absentee vote deadlines, and later opening day for requesting absentee votes. That shortens the absentee voting period from 180 days to 78 days. That suppresses votes.
6. Voting Buses are no longer allowed. Fulton County used voting buses to have a mobile voting location, announced beforehand to be in certain places on certain days. SB202 banned the bus. 112,000+ voters utilized the voting buses last election. That suppresses votes. And it shouldn't be lost on anyone that Fulton county has the largest number of minority voters in the state.
7. Provisional ballots in an incorrect precinct will not be counted (unless after 5pm). If a voter goes to the wrong precinct for any reason (old precinct closed/merged, long lines at their main precinct, main precinct too far from job location, etc) then the whole ballot will be discarded. More than 3,300 ballots were cast provisionally at incorrect precincts in 2020. That suppresses votes.
8. Local governments cannot mail out ballots or absentee ballot request forms unless they are requested specifically by a voter. Some counties sent out absentee ballot requests forms to all active registered voters. This law bans that. Many groups sent out absentee ballot request forms to all kinds of people. Many people received numerous such forms from different groups, even after they had requested an absentee ballot. SB202 changes that (assuming an active court case doesn't overturn this portion of the law) so that organizations get fined if they send out a form to someone who has already requested an absentee ballot. That suppresses votes.
9. Any voter can challenge as many other voters' eligibility in the same county as they wish. That means one person could challenge every other voter's eligibility in their own county if they so desired. That suppresses votes (and wastes the time of election officials who have to investigate, and of any challenged voter who may have to prove their eligibility in a timely manner or have their vote discarded).
10. (These final two aren't in the law -- but *were* in the original bill that was introduced by the house and should be considered to judge the motivation for the law.)
    
    Original proposal tried to ban Sunday early voting. There was no reason given, but Sunday voting called "Souls to the Polls" were a very popular type of early voting by black churches in Georgia. This would obviously have suppressed votes and very specifically black votes. It was taken out after incredible pushback.
11. Original proposal tried to remove "no excuse" absentee ballots. Oddly, it was Republicans who championed and passed no-excuse absentee ballots (over the objections of some Democrats!) in 2005; they had never once been called into question until their candidate lost in 2020. This would have also suppressed votes, but was taken out after objections from all across the political spectrum.

So there you have it. You can never say that nobody has shown proof of a law that suppresses votes ever again; the only thing you can say is you disagree with the obvious suppression attempt and think it isn't suppression (although by definition, every one of the things listed presents obstacles to people being able to vote and thus suppress the vote).

okay Farb now it’s your turn

Where‘s your proof of the rampant voter fraud that made all these changes necessary?

 

[DaveXA]

okay Farb now it’s your turn

Where‘s your proof of the rampant voter fraud that made all these changes necessary?

Yeah, there isn't any. This is simply the Georgia Republican party seeing what they can legally get away with.

 

[Paul]

lol saying NPR is worse than faux news is pretty absurd

then again maybe my gauge is different. But last I checked NPR didn't willingly participate in promoting lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories which lead to helping instigate the insurrection.

If one listens to a network that openly tells you they have a bias that is less damaging than a network that pretends to be neutral.

If any of us have confirmation bias then the biased network that reinforces our point of view seems quite normal and unbiased.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If one listens to a network that openly tells you they have a bias that is less damaging than a network that pretends to be neutral.

If any of us have confirmation bias then the biased network that reinforces our point of view seems quite normal and unbiased.

There is a difference between bias and accuracy in reporting. It's very possible to have a left or right bias when it comes to editorials or story selection while delivering reporting that is accurate, thoroughly vetted, and free (or relatively free) of loaded words.

 

[Paul]

There is a difference between bias and accuracy in reporting. It's very possible to have a left or right bias when it comes to editorials or story selection while delivering reporting that is accurate, thoroughly vetted, and free (or relatively free) of loaded words.

Do you feel that accurately reporting only one side of the story is not biased?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

If we assume the Russians can control the election because they place adds on Face Book, then we also have to assume the voters are dumb.

We don't need to assume the latter part anymore.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Do you feel that accurately reporting only one side of the story is not biased?

I never said that NPR only reports one side of the story, so I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.

NPR:

Bias
In review, NPR (National Public Radio) uses moderately emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “President Trump’s Description of What’s ‘Fake’ Is Expanding.” Generally, story selection favors the Left with stories such as these: “Rise Of LGBTQ Candidates Could Usher In A ‘Rainbow Wave’ In 2018,” and Majority Of Americans Don’t Want Roe v. Wade Overturned. They also report right-leaning opinion pieces such as this: A Free-Market Economy Keeps Capitalism Ticking.

NPR reports world news with neutral headlines such as “In Bangladeshi Camps, Rohingya Refugees Try To Move Forward With Their Lives. NPR typically sources their information to credible sources such as the Washington Post, maristpoll.marist.edu, ohchr.org, The Economist, UNICEF, New York Times, and many more. NPR’s news reporting is consistently low biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues. However, taken on a whole, NPR is favored by a liberal audience, which indicates programming and story selection tends to lean left to appeal to their core listeners. For example, A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 67% of NPR’s audience is consistently or mostly liberal, 21% Mixed, and 12% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience strongly prefers NPR.

Failed Fact Checks
None to date

Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and Very High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and very accurate news reporting. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 03/10/2021)

Fox News:

According to a Pew Research Center survey, “Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters” during the 2016 election. Further, another Pew Survey indicates, “When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news.”

Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective. Also, it has several on-air personalities that are strong supporters of Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Tomi Lahren; thus, during the Trump Presidency, FNC typically skewed conservative as there was less criticism of Trump.

In review, FNC publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “’They Wanted It to Blow Up’: Limbaugh Says Success of Trump-Kim Summit Caught Media Off Guard” and “Tucker: 2016 Russia Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ Now Extends to Jill Stein.” When it comes to sourcing, they typically utilize pro-Trump pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, who has an abysmal record with fact-checkers and credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is also known to publish right-wing conspiracy theories, although they retracted the story after being sued. FNC has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source, according to Politifact.

Failed Fact Checks
Says John Bolton “fundamentally was a man of the left.” – PANTS OF FIRE
“NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – PANTS ON FIRE
Obamacare is “one big fat VA system.” – PANTS ON FIRE
Marie Yovanovitch is “dishonest” when she claimed she never personally responded to an email from a Democratic staffer. – FALSE
“Biden’s climate requirements” will “cut 90% of red meat from diet” to a “max 4 lbs per year” and “one burger per month.” – PANTS ON FIRE
“Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.” – False

Overall Bias and Credibility Rating
We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 5/21/2021)

 

[Paul]

I never said that NPR only reports one side of the story, so I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.

NPR:

Bias
In review, NPR (National Public Radio) uses moderately emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “President Trump’s Description of What’s ‘Fake’ Is Expanding.” Generally, story selection favors the Left with stories such as these: “Rise Of LGBTQ Candidates Could Usher In A ‘Rainbow Wave’ In 2018,” and Majority Of Americans Don’t Want Roe v. Wade Overturned. They also report right-leaning opinion pieces such as this: A Free-Market Economy Keeps Capitalism Ticking.

NPR reports world news with neutral headlines such as “In Bangladeshi Camps, Rohingya Refugees Try To Move Forward With Their Lives. NPR typically sources their information to credible sources such as the Washington Post, maristpoll.marist.edu, ohchr.org, The Economist, UNICEF, New York Times, and many more. NPR’s news reporting is consistently low biased, factual, and covers both sides of issues. However, taken on a whole, NPR is favored by a liberal audience, which indicates programming and story selection tends to lean left to appeal to their core listeners. For example, A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 67% of NPR’s audience is consistently or mostly liberal, 21% Mixed, and 12% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience strongly prefers NPR.

Failed Fact Checks
None to date

Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and Very High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and very accurate news reporting. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 03/10/2021)

Fox News:

According to a Pew Research Center survey, “Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters” during the 2016 election. Further, another Pew Survey indicates, “When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news.”

Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective. Also, it has several on-air personalities that are strong supporters of Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Tomi Lahren; thus, during the Trump Presidency, FNC typically skewed conservative as there was less criticism of Trump.

In review, FNC publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “’They Wanted It to Blow Up’: Limbaugh Says Success of Trump-Kim Summit Caught Media Off Guard” and “Tucker: 2016 Russia Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ Now Extends to Jill Stein.” When it comes to sourcing, they typically utilize pro-Trump pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, who has an abysmal record with fact-checkers and credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is also known to publish right-wing conspiracy theories, although they retracted the story after being sued. FNC has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source, according to Politifact.

Failed Fact Checks
Says John Bolton “fundamentally was a man of the left.” – PANTS OF FIRE
“NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – PANTS ON FIRE
Obamacare is “one big fat VA system.” – PANTS ON FIRE
Marie Yovanovitch is “dishonest” when she claimed she never personally responded to an email from a Democratic staffer. – FALSE
“Biden’s climate requirements” will “cut 90% of red meat from diet” to a “max 4 lbs per year” and “one burger per month.” – PANTS ON FIRE
“Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.” – False

Overall Bias and Credibility Rating
We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 5/21/2021)

That Fox is more biased than NPR is obvious.

 

[Paul]

We don't need to assume the latter part anymore.

Ha, ha! !!!! That was clever!
Do you actually know why some people lean left and others lean right?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That Fox is more biased than NPR is obvious.

Yet you say NPR is worse than Fox News.

 

[Paul]

Yet you say NPR is worse than Fox News.

Yes, they are less biased, but they pretend to be neutral. I believe that sort of deception is worse.