This article from Blue Virginia unpacks a deep-seated frustration with what the author perceives as the widespread shortcomings of mainstream political journalism in America. The author kicks things off by explicitly stating their long-held, rather critical views on this topic, explaining that their skepticism isn’t just a fleeting feeling. They argue that many “mainstream” political journalists prioritize maintaining “access” to powerful politicians above all else. This desire for access, in the author’s view, leads to a reluctance to genuinely challenge politicians, call out their falsehoods, or hold them accountable for their actions. It creates an environment where tough questions are avoided, and inconvenient truths are often glossed over, all to keep doors open for future interviews and scoops.
Beyond the issue of access, the author identifies several other critical flaws within mainstream media. A significant point of concern is the pervasive use of “false equivalence” and “both-sides-ism.” This journalistic approach, the author argues, falsely equates the actions and statements of different political parties or figures, even when one side’s actions are demonstrably more extreme or harmful. This tendency often results in the “sanewashing” of figures like Donald Trump and other far-right extremists, presenting their radical views as merely another perspective rather than exposing their dangerous implications. The author also laments the focus on non-substantive “horse race” coverage, where the emphasis is on who’s winning or losing in the political game rather than on the actual policy issues and their impact on people’s lives. This approach, they argue, trivializes politics and leaves the public ill-informed. Furthermore, the author points out a perceived double standard in how different politicians are treated: Republicans, especially those on the far right, often receive “softball interviews” – exemplified by Jake Tapper’s interviews with figures like Donald Trump or Glenn Youngkin – and even “hagiography,” such as a New York Times interview with Tucker Carlson, which the author labels “hot garbage.” In stark contrast, Democrats, like President Joe Biden, are frequently “bashed relentlessly” for minor transgressions, even when their Republican counterparts engage in far worse behavior with greater frequency, often receiving a “pass” or having their language “cleaned up” by the media.
The core of the article then shifts to a concrete example that perfectly illustrates these grievances: an interview by WDBJ7 with far-right Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA06) regarding redistricting. The author, referencing Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Press, highlights how the interviewer failed to challenge Cline’s demonstrably false claims. Cline asserted that the proposed new Sixth District would be redrawn to include parts of Northern Virginia, a claim the author vehemently debunks, noting that the district’s northernmost reach is Harrisonburg, which is geographically distinct from Northern Virginia. This uncorrected falsehood, according to the author, is a monumental failure of journalistic duty. They argue that a journalist’s role is not to passively allow politicians to spout misinformation but to actively correct factual inaccuracies. The WDBJ7 interviewer, however, let Cline “double down” on his misleading statements, effectively allowing the segment to become, in the author’s words, “straight-up MAGA propaganda.”
The author provides a detailed breakdown of the interview, offering critical commentary after each bullet point summarizing Cline’s statements. They point out that WDBJ7 clearly had information about the actual new district map, making their failure to correct Cline’s “outright lies” even more “egregious.” The author stresses that the proposed VA06 district, which includes areas like Albemarle County, Charlottesville, Roanoke, and Lynchburg, is definitively not in Northern Virginia. Despite this, WDBJ7 made no effort to correct Cline, reinforcing the author’s belief that the station prioritized avoiding confrontation over informing its viewers. The author then criticizes WDBJ7 for simply amplifying Cline’s unsubstantiated claims that the redistricting process ignored Virginia’s constitution and that the ballot question was designed to confuse voters. This, the author argues, is a prime example of bad journalism: instead of uncritically regurgitating a politician’s “flat-out lies or at best highly questionable opinions,” journalists should inform viewers of the facts and “push back” against misinformation. This inaction, they suggest, points to the media’s overarching desire to maintain “precious ‘access'” and avoid offending right-wing viewers, betraying the journalistic principle of “without fear or favor.”
Further exacerbating the author’s frustration is WDBJ7’s portrayal of redistricting, which they label as a “CLASSIC example of false equivalence, ‘both sides-ism,’ etc.” The station stated that “redistricting is happening in both blue and red states across the country, and more is likely on the way after the U.S. Supreme Court scaled back the Voting Rights Act.” The author argues this is a deliberate misrepresentation and a “whitewashed/sanitized language” that obscures the true nature of the situation. They contend that the entire redistricting controversy is a direct consequence of Trump and Republican efforts – including those on the Supreme Court – to dismantle democracy, manipulate electoral maps in their favor, and disenfranchise Black voters. By presenting it as a neutral, nationwide phenomenon and merely stating the Supreme Court “scaled back” the Voting Rights Act rather than acknowledging it was “gutted,” WDBJ7, in the author’s view, actively misinforms its audience and downplays the severe implications for democratic integrity.
Finally, the article concludes by highlighting a “moronic, softball ‘question'” posed to Cline: “Do you feel confident that you guys will keep the house in November?” Unsurprisingly, Cline expressed confidence, claiming Republicans were “delivering on a number of matters.” WDBJ7 then amplified Cline’s narrative, stating he “noted that Republicans in the House passed a separate budget reconciliation bill that will fund ICE and Border Patrol for the next three years.” The author decries this as “utter shit ‘journalism’,” criticizing the lack of a challenging question, the absence of follow-up, and the “uncritical amplification” of Cline’s potentially misleading claims about Republican achievements. They argue that a real journalist would have pointed out that Republicans could have passed a funding bill weeks earlier but chose to stick to a hard line without good reason. The author also notes that if the Virginia Supreme Court validates the redistricting referendum, Ben Cline would be “TOAST” politically, a crucial piece of context a “real journalist” would have mentioned. The overall takeaway is a passionate plea for more rigorous, fact-based, and challenging political journalism that prioritizes truth and public information over access, false neutrality, and partisan narratives.