[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
ACTION ALERT: NYT Invents Left Extremists to Make 'Moderation' the Midterm Winner Julie Hollar ([link removed])


Election Focus 2022 Of the many lessons to be learned from this year's midterms, in which Democrats defied historical trends ([link removed]) to largely hold off a GOP wave, the New York Times' Jonathan Weisman ([link removed]) and Katie Glueck ([link removed]) (11/14/22 ([link removed]) ) singled out corporate media's recurring favorite: Moderation won.

With the widespread losses suffered by extremist Republican candidates, it's no surprise that journalists and pundits are reading lessons into that for the GOP. But in true ([link removed]) Timesian ([link removed]) fashion ([link removed]) , Weisman and Glueck argued that it's both extremes that voters rejected. "On the Right and Left, People Voted to Reject Extremists in Midterms," announced the headline to their piece in the print edition.


** 'Similar dynamic'
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Extreme Candidates and Positions Came Back to Bite in Midterms

This New York Times article (11/14/22 ([link removed]) ) started with a list of three "extreme candidates"—including Oregon's Jamie McLeod-Skinner, who apparently made the list because she's a "liberal Democrat."

In a jarring lead, they laid out three examples of "extremism" losing: Adam Laxalt ([link removed]) (running for Senate from Nevada) and Doug Mastriano ([link removed]) (running for Pennsylvania governor), both GOP election deniers and abortion-rights opponents—and Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a Democratic House candidate in Oregon who was described by the local paper (Oregonian, 10/12/22 ([link removed]) ) as someone whose "ability to target common objectives will be key for uniting constituents" in a diverse district.

Confused? Republicans, Weisman and Glueck went on,

received a sweeping rebuke from Americans who, for all the qualms polls show they have about Democratic governance, made clear they believe that the GOP has become unacceptably extreme.

But, they argued, "on a smaller scale, a similar dynamic could be discerned on the left," where "Democratic primary voters chose more progressive nominees over moderates in a handful of House races," and thereby lost seats "that could have helped preserve a narrow Democratic majority" in the House.

It's a bizarre case of journalists prioritizing balance at all costs, which they can only achieve by not pointing to a single thing that might qualify the Democrats in question as "extremists."

The piece described some of the actual extremism that voters apparently rejected on the right, including "embrace of Donald Trump's lies about the 2020 election," "a morass of conspiracy theories and far-right policy positions," the "drive to ban abortions," and "a drift away from fundamental rights and democracy itself"—not to mention "the bizarre claim ([link removed]) , given credence by some Republican candidates, that children were going beyond gender and identifying as cats who needed litter boxes in classrooms."

While most would accept that these are extremist positions, the reporters matched them on the left with mere labels ("from the liberal wing of their party," an "ardent progressive") and not a single policy position, statement or action. Apparently if you call a politician "progressive" at the Times, it's meant to be understood that they're extreme, with no further explanation required.


** Who's an 'extremist'?
------------------------------------------------------------

But let's take a closer look at all of the "extremist" House Democratic candidates the Times offered as examples: McLeod-Skinner of Oregon, Michelle Vallejo of Texas and Christy Smith of California.

In her primary, McLeod-Skinner defeated incumbent Kurt Schrader, described by the Times as "moderate"—like "progressive," a word not defined or substantiated by the reporters. How "moderate" is Schrader, exactly? After voting against the overwhelmingly popular ([link removed]) American Rescue Plan, playing a key role ([link removed]) in weakening the Democrats' Build Back Better agenda, and calling the impeachment of Donald Trump for the January 6 insurrection a "lynching," ([link removed]) Schrader lost the support of two-thirds of the Democratic county parties in his district, who accused him of voting in the interests of the industries that bankrolled him, not his constituents (Intercept, 3/24/22
([link removed]) ).

McLeod-Skinner herself ran with a populist approach and was embraced by progressives, but declined to accept the "progressive" label for herself (American Prospect, 11/7/22 ([link removed]) ). In the Oregonian endorsement (10/12/22 ([link removed]) ) noted above, the editors also wrote: "Her priorities are not partisan, but focused on people's needs, she noted—rebuilding the economy, increasing the availability of housing and supporting working families."
American Prospect: How Democrats Lost a House Seat in California

Christy Smith, one of the New York Times' Democratic "extreme candidates," has now lost to an election-denying ([link removed]) Trumpist three times; after her first loss, the American Prospect (5/18/20 ([link removed]) ) noted that her "platform featured few of the progressive agenda items that excited voters."

Christy Smith, perhaps the most baffling choice for the Times to include, is a former state assembly member characterized by the LA Times (5/16/22 ([link removed]) ) as "a levelheaded centrist with years of relevant experience." Smith's district ([link removed]) , long Republican, was won in 2018 by Democrat Katie Hill ([link removed]) , who, running as a progressive, won by a 9-point margin ([link removed]) (the kind of outcome that demonstrates the potential strength of a left-of-center platform even in a swing district). After Hill's resignation ([link removed]) , Smith lost the seat to her Republican opponent in a special election
([link removed]) —running as what the American Prospect (5/18/20 ([link removed]) ) described as a "safe centrist" with a "lack of motivating policy ambitions," such as Hill's support ([link removed]{%22search%22%3A[%22Medicare+for+All%22]}&r=17&s=1) for Medicare for All. That the Times included Smith as an example of extremism run amok in the Democratic Party shows just how far it has to stretch to find balance in all things.

Smith won her primary against John Quaye Quartey, a former naval intelligence officer described by Weisberg and Glueck as what the veterans group VoteVets thought was a "dream candidate." That "dream candidate," a newcomer ([link removed]) to both the area and politics, had the backing of some Washington Democrats, but netted ([link removed]) just over 4,000 votes to Smith's 34,000—which raises the questions of whose dreams such a candidate fulfills, and why the New York Times thinks he might have stood a better chance than Smith in the general election.

Michelle Vallejo, the sole example who did, in fact, embrace the progressive label, promoted as her top issues ([link removed]) Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, abortion rights and investments in green energy jobs.

While those sorts of issues tend to be branded by corporate media as "far left" or "extreme," they are quite popular among Democratic voters, and often more broadly as well (FAIR.org, 5/18/18 ([link removed]) ). By trying to tell a story of voters rejecting extremism on both left and right, the Times puts such things as threatening democracy, engaging in conspiracy theories and supporting draconian abortion laws on the same footing as seeking adequate representation for local interests and rights—and suggests that both are the kinds of things the parties would do well to avoid.


** Progressive scapegoats
------------------------------------------------------------
Nation: New York State Cost Democrats Control of Congress. Will Anyone Be Held Accountable?

The establishment Democrats who lost four seats in the New York Times' home state (The Nation, 11/15/22 ([link removed]) ) did not figure into the paper's analysis that the 2022 midterms were a victory for "moderation."

The Times blamed these so-called progressive candidates for helping the party lose the House. But was it those Democrats' policy positions that cost them their races? McLeod-Skinner, who refused to take corporate donations in her fight against a millionaire Republican, was abandoned ([link removed]) by the national party and ended up being vastly outspent by her opponent (Intercept, 11/11/22 ([link removed]) )—yet still came within 3 percentage points of winning.

Vallejo was even more overwhelmingly outspent ([link removed]) , and even more ignored by the national party, which focused its spending on defending the seat of the anti-abortion rights ([link removed]) Democratic incumbent Henry Cuellar in the next district over (American Prospect, 10/28/22 ([link removed]) )—who, the Times crowed, "trounced" his own Republican opponent after narrowly escaping ([link removed]) a primary challenge from progressive Jessica Cisneros ([link removed]) .

And Smith? You guessed it, wildly outspent and left for dead by her party (Politico, 10/14/22 ([link removed]) ).

Meanwhile, in perhaps the highest-profile win by a Democrat who defeated a more centrist primary opponent, John Fetterman (who bested centrist Conor Lamb ([link removed]) in the primary) won ([link removed]) his hard-fought Pennsylvania Senate race. The Times briefly noted Fetterman's win as a counterexample and moved quickly on.

But of course left-of-center candidates weren't the only ones to lose key House races for the Dems. In New York alone, the Democrats lost four House seats ([link removed]) ; none of the losing candidates were progressives. While court-ordered redistricting ([link removed]) in New York left Democrats scrambling, it's notable that the Times analysis didn't mention the high-profile loss of New York representative, DCCC chair and quintessential "moderate" ([link removed]) Sean Patrick Maloney.

After pushing out a progressive incumbent ([link removed]) who had represented most of that district prior to redistricting, and defeating another popular progressive in the primary with the help of a 5-to-1 funding advantage and vicious attack ads (Intercept, 8/12/22 ([link removed]) ), Maloney lost, despite the district voting for Biden in 2020 by more than 10 points, and despite the full backing—and funding—of the centrist wing of the party (Slate, 11/14/22 ([link removed]) ).

What does Maloney's loss say about voters' "support for moderation"? Don't ask Weisman and Glueck. Plenty of political observers had things to say about it (e.g., The Nation, 11/15/22 ([link removed]) ), but the Times reporters only quoted centrist Democrats and organizations who supported their absurd argument.


** ACTION:
------------------------------------------------------------

Please tell the New York Times to explain how the Democrats cited in its November 14 piece qualify as "extremists."


** CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------

Letters: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

Readers Center: Feedback ([link removed])

Twitter: @NYTimes ([link removed])

Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.


Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .