January Update

2020 was quite the year

This has been extraordinary eight weeks in American politics - weeks which followed an extraordinary four years. The Project issued this statement in response to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. We wrote, in part:

Those who participate in our political system have an obligation to that system. Unfounded attacks on elections and democratic institutions undermine popular support for, and threaten our political system…Our republic is not a rock standing tall on a barren landscape, holding firm against the elements. It did not exist before we invented it, and it cannot continue to exist unless we care for it.

Recent research by scholars at half a dozen institutions examined the damage being done by baseless attacks on the election and a disregard for political norms. They write, “…when elites are unconstrained and violate norms, their supporters respond accordingly.”

In the midst of it all, the Project on Ethics in Political Communication has been promoting the study, teaching and practice of ethics in political communication. Below are some highlights of the past year. With your help, we can continue to grow and succeed. Forward this email to friends who might find our work interesting, let us know who else we should reach out to, and what else we should be doing. And of course, follow us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Events

In March, the Project marked its first anniversary with an event about ethics and speechwriting. Since then we have hosted half a dozen more with a scholars, political insiders, and students. Watch them here.

Talks

In 2020 we spoke to classes, with political professionals and advocates, at a congregation, and more. We would love to join your students or group for a conversation - email me for details.

Press

Journalists and podcasters sought out the Project for our take on politics in 2020. You can check out our media coverage here.

Writing

The Project continues to work with the Media Ethics Initiative at the University of Texas - Austin on classroom-ready case studies. We also wrote pieces for The Hill, Campaigns & Elections, The Fulcrum, Media Ethics, and Communication Currents. You can read our articles here. We also continue to write for our own blog. Have an idea for a blog post you want to write? Let me know.

Book

Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice came out in August. Half of the book’s chapters are by scholars covering everything from Isocrates, to digital politics, to race. The other half are by practitioners (including one of Biden’s first White House hires) writing about the daily ethical choices advocates make.

“a rich and timely compendium…”
James A. Thurber, founder, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University

“This text is essential in understanding the essential role of ethics in the theory and practice of politics in a democracy.”
Robert E. Denton Jr., Virginia Tech

Looking Ahead

Our next event will likely be the first week of March, to mark the second anniversary of the Project. Stay tuned for details. In the meantime we are going to continue to speak, write, and teach. We hope to involve more voices, reach more students, and persuade more journalists, scholars, students - and practitioners - that the ethics of how we make our case matters. To keep up with latest, follow us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

If you have an idea for the Project, links we should add to our website, know people we should talk to, or if you would like us to speak to your class or organization let me know.

Be well,

• Peter

  Peter Loge
  Director, Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Statement on Attempts to Overturn the 2020 US Presidential Election

Those who participate in our political system have an obligation to that system. Unfounded attacks on elections and democratic institutions undermine popular support for, and threaten our political system.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris clearly won the 2020 presidential election. There is no evidence of widespread fraud or malfeasance. Those who baselessly argue otherwise are undermining our democracy.

Our political system succeeds only if the American people believe in it. Baseless attacks on that system undermine the public belief necessary to sustain our system. Our republic is not a rock standing tall on a barren landscape, holding firm against the elements. It did not exist before we invented it, and it cannot continue to exist unless we care for it.

Flaws in our political processes should be documented, highlighted, and addressed. Our system, like the people who designed it and work in it, is not perfect. And like people, the system can improve. For example, voting can be made easier and more secure, legislative districts can be drawn to better reflect people rather than protect political parties, and money continues to distort our politics. All of these challenges, and others, can and should be addressed in ways that move us toward a “more perfect union” and increase confidence in our democracy.

The attacks on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are groundless. Attempts to reverse the will of the people – be they threatening phone calls from the President or press releases sent by Congressional offices – undermine confidence in our democracy and weaken our political institutions.

Leaders across the ideological spectrum are rightly condemning attacks on the 2020 presidential election. More need to speak up. More leaders, especially Republican leaders, need to condemn the President’s actions and the actions of the members of Congress threatening to vote to overturn the election. Public figures need to call out pundits and others who are enabling the dangerous lie that the 2020 election was anything but fair. Failure to speak out in the face of these attacks weakens the political system in which we are privileged to participate.

Watch the Conversation - Can Political Consultants Fix American Politics?

Leading Democratic consultant Oren Shur (media advisor for Biden for President, oversaw paid media for Hillary for America), leading Republican consultant Susan Del Percio (MSNBC political analyst, senior advisor to the Lincoln Project) and George Washington University graduate student Nikita Sibley joined Project director Peter Loge for a conversation about what political consultants can do to improve politics (or at least make it less awful). You can watch the whole conversation here.

Event: Can Political Consultants Fix American Politics?

In the wake of 2020, what can political consultants do to make politics less awful? On December 10th at 6p ET join Project director Peter Loge for a conversation with senior Democratic strategist Oren Shur, senior Republican strategist Susan Del Percio and George Washington University graduate student Nikita Sibley. Details and registration here.

The Election is Over, but it Just Keeps Going

The 2020 election is a reminder that how candidates and elected officials talk about politics matters. We’re not going too far out on a limb in saying we think political campaigns can be better. Part of “better” includes a grounding in ethics.

Below is an update on how we’ve been making that case, and some of what we have planned. There are links to a few recent blog posts, details of a December event in which we’re going to ask leading political consultants how they can help make politics less awful, new classroom-ready case studies, and more.

As always, you can keep up with the latest by following us on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, or by visiting our website.

Event: Can Political Consultants Fix American Politics?

In the wake of 2020, what can political consultants do to make politics less awful? On December 10th at 6p ET join Project director Peter Loge for a conversation with senior Democratic strategist Oren Shur, senior Republican strategist Susan Del Percio and SMPA graduate student Nikita Sibley. Details and registration here.

Case Studies

The Project has been working with the Media Ethics Initiative at the University of Texas - Austin on classroom-ready case studies on ethics in political communication. Topics include lobbying, framing, language, and more.

Press and Talks

The Project is getting press attention, including interviews on Sirius/XM, NPR’s Cross Currents, podcasts, and with reporters covering politics. We were asked to write apiece on mail-in voting for Campaigns & Elections, and we especially like this profile in the Deseret News. We’ve also spoken at the Project on Political Reform at the University of Chicago, Oregon State University, the Bellamy Genn Group, and elsewhere. We would love to talk to your class, organization, listeners and viewers as well. Email me to learn more.

Case Studies

The Project has been working with the Media Ethics Initiative at the University of Texas - Austin on classroom-ready case studies on ethics in political communication. Topics include lobbying, framing, language, and more.

Book Launch

Thanks to everyone who joined the official launch event for Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice with Peter Loge, former CNN Washington Bureau Chief Frank Sesno and George Washington University student Anthony Thomas. You can watch the conversation here and you order the book from Rowman & Littlefield.

That’s a snapshot of what we’ve been up to and some of what is coming next. To keep up with latest, follow us on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn. If you have an idea, or if you would like us to speak to your class or organization let us know.

Be well,

• Peter

  Peter Loge

  Director, Project on Ethics in Political Communication

The Counting Continues - So Does the Need for Ethics

The voting is over but the counting continues. So does the need for advocates to add ethics to their rhetorical toolbox.

With apologies to Thomas Hobbes, the 2020 election was nasty, brutish and long. Campaigns up and down the ballot exacerbated political divisions that have been with us since our nation’s founding. Those divisions will not be resolved when the outcomes of all of the elections are official. Our campaigns too often go from arguing about policy to condemning people because of their politics; rivals become opponents, and opponents become enemies. Too many politicians and consultants pick at America’s political scabs in the hopes of gaining electoral advantage.

Candidates and campaign consultants, advocates, journalists, and political communication scholars and students can take several steps to take to improve the quality of our politics, and thus the quality of our democracy.

Candidates and Campaign Consultants

You cannot burn down a house and expect to live in it. You cannot attack the idea of politics and hope to govern. Your voters listen to you. A lot of people believe you when you say the other side is evil, that the free press is an enemy of democracy, and that elections are frauds. If you cannot win without attacking the core tenets of our democracy, you probably ought not be participating in democratic elections.

Attack political opponents for what they say, or what they have done that is relevant to how good a job they would do if elected, not who they are or for things have no bearing on the office. Promote democratic institutions, even as you make the case for how they can be improved. Defend the independent professionals working on the public’s behalf, even as you argue for ways that work can be done better. Demonstrate you are proud of a system that allows you participate in it.

Join the Project on Ethics in Political Communication on December 10th as we talk to a leading Democratic strategist, a leading Republican strategist, and a political communication student about how consultants can help improve our politics. Sign up here to learn more.

Advocates

Over the past year, advocates of all stripes focused on electing their preferred candidate in the hopes the winner would listen to their arguments. Organizations across the political spectrum have already made it clear that they view election day as the day when the real work begins. Everyone, from those who oppose all access to all abortions to those who oppose all fossil fuels, views November as the time to get to work.

These advocates should advocate. They should be loud, bold, and hold power accountable. And they should do so in ways that advance a democratic dialogue. Advocates need to consider who is left out of their communications, whose voices are not being heard and whose faces are not being seen. They need to make their case in ways that strengthen the system and allows them to be part of the discussion.

Journalists

Journalists should add discussions of ethics to their coverage of causes and candidates. Reporters routinely talk to legal experts about whether or not tactics and actions broke the law, political scientists about the possible impacts of campaigns, and political handicappers about the odds of someone winning or a bill passing. They should also reach out to philosophers, rhetorical scholars, and ethicists to ask about the appropriateness of an ad or action. Journalists should not just ask what one can do, but also what one ought to do.

Scholars and Students

More and more schools are offering graduate degrees and certificates, majors, minors, and courses in political communication. Students in those programs should study the ethics of political communication alongside its theory and practice. Political communication degrees should include a course on ethics, and courses in political communication should include ethics on the syllabus.

The Media Ethics Initiative at the University of Texas - Austin has a growing library of short case studies for students, and the new textbook Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice can be a tremendous resource.

Scholars interested in digital media, campaign advertising, speechwriting, and the other areas that make up political communication scholarship should also consider ethics. For example, how do democratic norm-promoting campaigns perform compared to campaigns that attack democratic norms? Are rhetorical appeals that rely on core democratic values to make a point about the present both more ethical and effective than speeches that argue from circumstance (as Richard Weaver suggested)? How does the public respond to press coverage of campaign ethics?

The voting is over, the counting continues, and our raucous democratic debate carries on. Those of us who are lucky enough to make a living advocating for people and causes in which we believe, and who are charged with teaching the next generation of advocates, have an obligation to help heal the wounds. We can, and should, continue to be passionate and partisan advocates. And as we advocate, sometimes with sharp rhetoric, we should always focus on the nation we are helping build beyond the next election or legislative session. Our work is nothing less than the work of democracy.

The Election is Over When The Counting Stops - Not When Voting Stops

By Zoe Garbis, Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Every four years, Americans gather around their televisions on the night of Election Day and watch as networks gradually fill in a map of the US with red and blue, like an exercise in painting by numbers for adults. The 2020 map will probably not be colored in neatly in one evening.

Source: Library of Congress

The narrative of Election Day to which voters are accustomed is misleading, not only because of the increase in mail-in voting, but also because it never accurately reflected the election to begin with. People are already voting, and they will continue voting up until polls close on Election Day. The election process, in the form of counting all those votes, will continue for days—and maybe weeks—beyond November 3. States always take time to count mail-in and provisional ballots, and otherwise ensure their results are accurate. In 2016, some states did not certify their election results until the second week of December. For TV news stations and journalists to report on the election and its results based on this single-day election “event” narrative is misleading and this year in particular, it is unethical.

This election season, an estimated 55-60% of voters are expected to have mailed in their votes ahead of Election Day, in part at the request of state election officials who are taking precautions against the spread of COVID-19 at polling stations. As of October 22, over 32 million people have voted early by mail, and another 13 million have voted early in person. Notably, battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are barring officials from counting ballots until Election Day, and in Michigan, officials can only begin processing ballots on November 2. Unlike states such as Washington, in which all voting has been done by mail since 2005, these and other states face logistical obstacles to counting votes quickly. As the New York Times points out, “this year, federal law sets Dec. 8 as the deadline to determine which presidential candidate has won each state, 35 days after Election Day.” Consequently, voters—and TV news media—will have to prepare to wait for results. Even following the deadline there may be legal disputes and court battles about the results of the election.

While voters wait, they will be paying close attention to journalists and TV news stations reporting results. How these journalists and TV news stations report on and frame the narrative of the democratic process play an important role in how voters interact and engage with democracy, which makes the following few weeks an exercise in political communication ethics.

Voters must get past the expectation of receiving immediate, conclusive results on the night of Election Day. And media must not cater to this expectation, instead reminding voters the election isn’t over until all the votes are counted. Voters know all too well what happens when a Presidential election is called prematurely (few wish to relive the chaos of the 2000 election). The several risks of calling the election prematurely include: announcing the wrong winner; jeopardizing the credibility of TV news reporting and other journalists; and, the most ethically problematic, misinforming American voters, who “may be the most vulnerable to misinformation” during an extended waiting period. Furthermore, prematurely calling the election discredits the incredible amount of work that goes into administering voter registration, voting, and ballot counting, a process already under strain from conducting mail-in voting on a massive scale.

Most importantly, perpetuating the idea that the election process ends on November 3rd has an erosive force on democracy. In a process already plagued by democratic deficits and threatened by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and illegitimacy, we need to preserve all respect for the process that we can. Our democracy can only survive if people believe our disputes are fairly resolved at the ballot box, and not by force. That means waiting for conclusive electoral outcomes and recognizing that the purpose of democratic voting is for each eligible citizen’s voice to be counted.

Many officials and organizations are advocating for media outlets to refrain from calling the election prematurely, and there are clear ethical reasons for doing so.

For example, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold asked national media executives not to report results immediately on Election Day in the interest of protecting American democracy. Unfortunately, such requests have been misinterpreted; Griswold was accused of encouraging journalists to withhold facts about election results. The ethical approach is for TV news stations continue to report facts, accurate numbers, and results, but only when they become conclusively available. They must refrain from making speculative or grandiose claims about the outcome of the election on Election Day, or even the days following.

With two weeks left until the election, networks should be careful about how they frame the election. They should abandon relying on the coloring of a map to communicate results, and they should prepare audiences well in advance for what will likely be an extensive waiting time. As active participants in the process, TV news reporters must not race or compete amongst each other to provide the quickest results—they should compete to provide the most accurate results. They should follow recommendations from the National Task Force on Election Crises or the Election Coverage and Democracy Network, who have published resources for journalists about how to ethically cover the election process. As the Neiman Lab recommends, they should rely on information relayed from local and state election officials, not campaigns. And decision teams must abandon historical election models, which are built on the assumption that early results are accurate indicators of overall outcomes. Overall, they must take advantage of their positions as active participants in the democratic process, with a great ethical responsibility to reassure the public that they will report accurate and fair results.

Meanwhile, voters should be careful about where they get their information. They must ask themselves which media sources and reporters they trust to present fact-checked results. While platforms such as Twitter are taking steps to regulate inaccurate and premature Election-calling, voters must be vigilant about how they consume election-related information online. Voters must also give more consideration to the election as a process, rather than a hard deadline.

Lastly, candidates should not declare victory on Election Day, and in general should wait until after results have been confirmed by election officials.

It is common to not know election results immediately. Fair and accurate elections are a hallmark of a successful democracy. Not only are democratic elections themselves a process, but democracy at large is a process as well. To rush this process is to do a disservice to the millions of voters who showed up this year and the thousands of officials who are administering the election. Ethical and respectful behavior will continue to safeguard the integrity of our democratic institutions.

Further reading:

The election could be contested and last for weeks after Nov. 3. Here’s what experts think journalists should know The Neiman Lab

Task Force Media Guide: Covering the Election Before, During, and After Nov. 3 National Task Force on Election Crises

Recommendations for Media Covering the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Election Coverage and Democracy Network

Explainer: Red mirage, blue mirage - Beware of early U.S. election wins Reuters

• Post edited on 10-26-20 to correct information about voting rules in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

  .

More Civil, Ethically Short

The debate between Vice President Pence and Senator Harris was more civil than the recent debate between President Trump and Vice President Biden. But the debate fell short ethically.

Both candidates were relatively calm and measured, each generally let the other speak (though Harris scolded Pence on several occasions for trying to cut her off), and they both spoke for almost the exact same amount of time. The interactions were sharp elbowed and the rhetoric biting, but had they been allowed to, one imagines they would have shaken hands at the end and commended each other on a job well done.

Unfortunately Vice President Pence repeatedly misstated or overstated the facts, and he also failed to assure voters that the electoral process was fair.

As the New York Times’ David Leonhardt put it,

“To be clear, both Pence and Harris also engaged in mild overstatement and rhetorical flourishes at times. That’s normal in politics…But Pence was far more dishonest...

The most disappointing aspect of Pence’s performance is that he has deep disagreements with Harris and Biden that don’t depend on distortions. It’s entirely possible to make a fact-based case against higher taxes on the rich; or widely available abortions; or high levels of immigration; or new restrictions on police.

But that is not what Pence did.”

The New York Times’ full fact check is here.

In addition to getting the facts wrong, the Vice President did not assure voters that all of the votes cast in this election would be counted, and that  he and President Trump would accept the outcome.

The Vice President was given a clear opportunity to promote our democratic process and he did not take it.  The debate moderator asked Pence,  “If vice president Biden is declared the winner and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what would be your role and responsibility as vice president?...” The Vice President spent his allotted two minutes attacking Hillary Clinton and Democrats in Congress, and telling people that he and Trump would win. He also accused Democrats of trying to change the rules of the election in ways that would increase voter fraud. His only comment addressing the question was at the end of his answer when he said, “And we have a free and fair election. We know we’re going to have confidence in it.” 

In contrast, when asked what she and Biden would do if Trump and Pence refused to accept the election results, Harris repeatedly told people to vote - “We believe in the American people, we believe in our democracy, and here’s what I’d like to say to everybody. Vote, please vote, vote early, come up with a plan to vote, go to Iwillvote.com…Joe Biden on that stage [with Trump] said, Hey, just please vote. So I’ll repeat what Joe said. Please vote.”

(A full transcript of the debate is here, the discussion about the election starts at the 42:03 mark).

Vice President Pence and Senator Harris could have - and should have - reminded voters that voting by mail is safe and secure and that vote fraud almost never happens. As the New York Times wrote, “Studies have shown that all forms of voting fraud are extremely rare in the United States. A national study in 2016 found few credible allegations of fraudulent voting. A panel that Mr. Trump charged with investigating election corruption found no real evidence of fraud before he disbanded it in 2018.” 

Elected officials and candidates should assure voters that their votes will be counted, the count will be fair and complete, and that the loser will accept the outcome. Those who participate in our electoral process have an ethical responsibility to that process. If our elected officials don’t have confidence in the process that brought them to power, why should the rest of us?

An Ethical VP Debate Will be Honest and Promote Confidence in Elections

This week’s vice presidential debate is likely to be largely civil. It should also be ethical. The candidates should be honest, and should promote trust in the political process.

Image credit: https://www.wannapik.com/vectors/17683

The upcoming debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will almost certainly  be more civil than the recent debate between President Trump and Vice President Biden. It can’t not be - President Trump’s disregard for the rules, insults, and casual relationship with the facts made the event nearly unwatchable.

At a bare minimum, Pence and Harris will likely more or less follow the rules, interrupt each other less, and more or less get their facts straight. Both are experienced politicians who have been elected to both legislative and executive office. Given the President’s health, and the tenor of the last debate, this week’s debate is probably going to be even more serious and focused than it might have otherwise been. It will be sharp-elbowed, each candidate probably has a list of zingers they hope will light up social media, but it will almost certainly sound less like a playground than the first Trump - Biden debate.

In addition to respecting each other and the rules to which they agreed, the two candidates should also tell the truth and promote confidence in the political process. They should demonstrate respect for each other, for the voters, and for the political process.

Our democracy more or less works because the American people more or less have faith in it. We believe that elections are generally fair, and that we have the opportunity to “vote the bums out” if need be. We hope that if we raise a big enough stink, policymakers will pay attention and change the laws. Of course we know our system doesn’t measure up to its ideals and healthy skepticism about power is part of the American tradition. But at some level we have confidence that everyone’s voice can be heard, that the dishonest will at some point be held to account, and that unfair practices will be fixed.

This confidence can feel tenuous. Voters worry about the impact of money in politics, and think Congress pays more attention to the rich and powerful than it does to the rest of us. But the general confidence in our system nevertheless remains because the system often works, and when it doesn’t work we can correct it. Every two years our votes get counted, and sometimes the bums get thrown out of office. Corrupt politicians and lobbyists sometimes go to jail. Our voices get heard.

Of course not all elections are fair. From gerrymandering, to voter suppression, to changing the rules to favor one side or another, our elections are far from perfect.  But any claims of fraud, cheating, suppression, or anything else that undermine confidence in elections should be backed up by facts and addressed. Such accusations should not be made lightly, and never for partisan gain. Baseless claims that the election is rigged, as President Trump has asserted, undermine faith in our political process. Such attacks not only weaken democracy, they also make it more difficult to address real problems with our electoral system. 

Candidates and elected officials have an ethical obligation to reinforce faith in our process, and to work to make that process better. They need to assure voters that their votes will be counted, that elections are fair, and that the loser will accept the results. 

A critical piece of this message is reminding voters that the final result may not be known for a few weeks after the deadline to vote. Voting stops on November third, but counting the votes will continue. A delayed final announcement means a lot of people voted, and that officials are making sure those votes get counted.

Vice President Pence and Senator Harris have a lot to disagree about. Those disagreements should be civil. They should also be based in fact. In addition, both Pence and Harris should remind voters that our democratic process matters, and even with its flaws it is mostly fair most of the time. Both candidates should encourage everyone to vote and assure the American people those votes will be counted. They have an ethical responsibility to do no less.

Is Undisclosed News Bias Ethical?

By Conor Kilgore, Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Americans across the political spectrum criticize the news media’s performance. You can find Republicans who believe that CNN, MSNBC, or the Washington Post are wholly owned propaganda arms of the Democratic Party. You can find Democrats who believe the same for Fox News or the Wall Street Journal and the Republican Party. These views may, or may not, match what independent observers find about media bias.

People concerned about bias agree the core mission of news organizations should be to pass along relevant information in as non-partisan and complete a way as possible. A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that 78 percent of Americans believed it was “never acceptable” for news organizations to “favor one political party over others when reporting the news.”

A media ethics case study from the University of Texas at Austin quotes media ethicist Stephen J.A. Ward, who said, “Journalists are engaged and advocates for what? For dialogic democracy….” If Ward is right, a journalist’s agenda is not political – the agenda is providing information to help people make informed political decisions. Given this, when a partisan political organization launches a purportedly objective news website ethical questions arise.

This is exactly what happened when Facebook shut down a political news site, Courier Newsroom. According to Axios, Courier Newsroom is an apparent news website funded by ACRONYM, a progressive political organization. Courier Newsroom ran stories appearing to be “hard news” with favorable portrayals of vulnerable Democratic members of Congress. As POLITICO’s Alex Thompson reported, an April 2020 headline read “Rep. Max Rose Deploys With National Guard to Get Hospital Ready For Coronavirus Patients.” Thompson wrote: “The article — boosted into circulation in New York by thousands of dollars in targeted Facebook ads — was mostly a rewrite of the congressman’s press release from the previous day.”

As Axios’ Sara Fischer reported in August 2020, Facebook announced a policy that would revoke the “news site” status of publishers with “direct, meaningful ties” to political organizations.” Facebook’s main distinction between news and political content, as Fischer wrote, was that outlets are marked as “political persuasion operations” if they are “owned by a political entity or a political person.” The “news site” designation allowed content like Courier Newsroom’s to appear alongside standard news stories.

According to Axios, Facebook, under the new advertising policy, defined a “political person” as "a candidate for elected office, a person who holds elected office, a person whose job is subject to legislative confirmation, or a person employed by and/or vested with decision-making authority by a political person or at a political entity." A “political entity” is “an organization, company, or other group whose predominant purpose is to influence politics and elections."

ACRONYM’s operation of Courier Newsroom raises ethical questions. While it is not untruthful to publish a story about Rep. Rose’s National Guard duty, the objective is to bolster Rep. Rose’s credentials. For “hard news” reporters, however imperfect they are, their goal is to gather and deliver relevant information to the public, not to elect a Republican or Democrat. 

The imperfect nature of the news media makes websites like Courier Newsroom especially ethically murky. While voters will mistrust CNN or Fox News, it does little good for the political process for organizations to pass themselves off as having the editorial standards of hard news organizations when their parent organization’s core mission indicates something else entirely.

For those who want to learn more about media bias, the Pew Research Center has a number of resources on how people feel about the media, and the impact of those feelings.