The Associated Press is a loyal servant of the Democratic Party and its liberal components. If you doubt that assertion, consider today’s AP article on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court term by reporter Mark Sherman.
Like pretty much all AP reporters, Sherman is a liberal, as you can see from his Twitter feed. So how does a liberal reporter spin his coverage of the Supreme Court? It’s easy: he just frames every legal issue with the liberal narrative, and turns exclusively to liberal sources for comments on the Court’s controversial cases.
Sherman begins today’s article with Justice Ginsburg’s pronouncement that this year’s term will be “momentous.” He says that conservatives have high hopes due to the presence of Justice Gorsuch, “an ally of the court’s most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.”
Now on to the cases the Court has accepted for review:
The very first case of the term, set for arguments Monday, could affect tens of millions of workers who have signed clauses as part of their employment contracts that not only prevent them from taking employment disputes to federal court, but also require them to arbitrate complaints individually, rather than in groups.
Arbitration clauses are common in many types of employment contracts. In general, the law favors arbitration of disputes. But Sherman doesn’t tell you that. Instead, he turns to a left-winger for comment:
“I’m very fearful, given the new Supreme Court, of what will happen,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The other side is not represented.
Next, Sherman turns to the Janus case:
Just on Thursday, the justices added a case that has the potential to financially cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions that represent government workers.
Taken together, the two cases “have a real chance of being a one-two punch against workers’ rights,” said Claire Prestel, a lawyer for the Service Employees International Union.
Janus is a workers’ rights case, all right. The issue is whether a public employee can be forced by law, against his or her will, to contribute money to a union that siphons off much or most of that contribution to support political candidates and causes of which the employee disapproves. But Sherman doesn’t tell you that. Instead, he goes for comment to a representative of a union that has a major financial interest in the case.
Next up is redistricting. Democrats are challenging the current state assembly map in Wisconsin as “excessively partisan.” Where does Sherman turn for comment? To a Republican, perhaps? Just kidding. Sherman goes to former Obama administration official Donald Verrilli.
The Colorado wedding cake case comes next. The issue, as Sherman writes, is “whether Phillips, who regards his custom-made cakes as works of art, can be compelled by the state to produce a message with which he disagrees.” For the answer, Sherman turns to–who else?–another former Obama Justice Department official, who speaks for the anti-baker side of the case:
The Trump administration is supporting Phillips in this case. Former Justice Department official Martin Lederman said the administration’s high court filing is the first in American history in favor of an exemption from civil rights laws.
Sherman didn’t think it necessary to find anyone to speak on behalf of Phillips. That’s not the side he is on.
Next, a gratuitous swipe at the Trump administration:
The administration also has reversed course in two cases before the justices. In the arbitration case, the administration now is supporting employers over their workers. In the other, the administration backs Ohio’s efforts to purge its voter rolls, over the objections of civil rights groups.
“Civil rights groups” are advocating for the voting rights of dead people, apparently. To continue his attack the Trump administration, Sherman turns to a neutral observer–the ACLU.
David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said plenty of other cases will test “whether and to what extent the court will be playing an independent role in checking the Trump administration’s positions with respect to basic rights protections.”
The Associated Press plays this game every day, in pretty much all of its coverage. Frame issues the way the Democratic Party wants them framed, then turn to liberal “experts” for comment. Are reporters like Mark Sherman fooling anyone? No, which is why trust in the media is in the toilet. Yet the incessant repetition of left-wing talking points has an effect, like rain wearing down rock.