Venneberg 1

William Venneberg

Professor Smith

English 102

May 9 2021

Research Paper

The freedom of the press from legislative regulation and censorship is one of the

principle foundations on which American society has built its enduring structures. A free press

serves as a check on the actions of the governing bodies to call attention to their misactions. The

nature of such a free press within America can be said to have experienced both little and great

shifts within its lifetime, and both statements would be true. In the scope of any individual news

outlet, the shift has been of great change; now, unlike at the time of America’s birth, one news

outlet can reach all corners of the nation within hours, if not minutes, of a story’s happening. The

information from individual papers and channels is consumed by millions of people daily. But

with regards to how an outlet operates interiorly, there has been little change at all. The

producers of the news are still fallible and driven by their own motivations. To viewers and

readers, these motivations are perceived, and in their being perceived, deter individuals who see

cause to distrust, attract individuals who distrust and seek to critique, and, most importantly,

attracts individuals who have been alienated elsewhere. These corresponding effects are by no

means new to the social patterns of Americans; they have occurred at varying degrees throughout

the history of news sources. But today, they are simultaneously caused by the political divides

within America and contribute in turn to the divides through the creation of distinct channels of

information.
 Venneberg 2

Some contend whether the topic of bias within the news media is an issue at all. In his

article “The Rise of Partisan Media Is Not Accountable for the Growing Political Polarization,”

author Kevin Arceneaux suggests, “People tune in to partisan news because they are partisans.

Even without partisan news media, these individuals would likely interpret the world through a

partisan lens” (Arceneaux). Arceneaux suggests that it was likely political polarization that has

led to partisan media not vice versa. The concession ought to be made that this can very well be

the case. While one can question Arceneaux’s evidence as it was limited mainly to television

news outlets Fox News and MSNBC, as a supposition, it seems reasonable.

However, the article’s suggestion that polarization does not occur in turn is subject to

scrutiny. A failure to report significant news stories, or even significant supporting details, can

affect the perception left on the viewer just as much as a lie told to them. Where the latter might

push the viewer towards partisanship, extending the general position of the viewer to the political

extreme being favored by the outlet, the former could be said to diminish the room for common

ground between the two political sides by limiting the availability of facts on which a basis for

agreement can be built. Both lead to distinct divides within the United States, but while pushes

toward radicalism are dangerous, a diminishing area where people can unite is a frightening

notion, nonetheless.

Several studies also indicate the viewers themselves believe media bias, at least perceived

media bias, is responsible for the partisan divide in the U.S. An infographic provided by Gale

and based on information gathered by Gallup and the Knight Foundation indicates this by

showing how people divided by race, gender, and political affiliation attribute blame to the news

media. According to the infographic titled Opinions among US Adults Regarding the News

Media’s Responsibility for Political Divisions and News Bias, 2019, there are disparities in how
 Venneberg 3

much blame is attributed between demographics, but of all respondents in each group, 47%

attribute “a great deal of blame” and another 36% attribute “a moderate amount of blame” for

political divisions to news outlets (Gale). One could say that 83% of people believing the media

is at least partially to blame for divisions is significant and constitutes a problem. An opponent

might argue that this is argumentum ad populum, and therefore is insufficient as evidence that

the problem exists. This critique is correct in that the use of these statistics is an appeal to

numbers, but the conclusion ought to be contested until it is at least in doubt. This discussion

concerns individuals’ habits, habits which are governed not by truths but by those individuals’

perceptions. For this reason, statistics that describe the number of individuals who blame media

bias for political divisions is at least a window into the issue at hand.

With the determination that a majority of Americans attribute blame to the news media

for political divides, and thus establishing the existence of an issue, a determination as to what

direction the implications of this issue tend ought to be made. Ignoring for the moment the

claims of defamation made by outlets on each side being directed at outlets on the opposing side

in efforts to discredit them, there are polls that indicate how biased the public perceives the

media to be. According to a Gallup article written by Lymari Morales from 2011, of the 60% of

Americans who observed bias within the media, 47% viewed the media as too liberal (Morales).

The numbers of more specific groups are more telling with 57% of Democrats believing the

media is “just about right” and Republicans and independents perceiving the media to be too

liberal at 75% and 50% respectively (Morales). This belief on the right that generally the media

is too liberal, an idea that is substantiated by the views of independents, makes the practices of

partisan individuals more understandable. According to the Pew Research report “Political

Polarization & Media Habits,” individuals who are consistently more conservative tend to use
 Venneberg 4

Fox News as their primary news source for politics at 47% while individuals who are

consistently more liberal, who presumably see the bias of the general media more favorably, tend

to vary in what they depend mainly on for political news (Mitchell et al.). It is understandable

that an individual who might feel alienated by most media outlets for their personal stances

would not tend to frequent them for their news lest the feeling of alienation persist instead

preferring news outlets that already portray news in a way similar to their own beliefs. For this,

the news outlets would need to have already been established with their particular biases. This is

how political divides cause partisan news in agreement with Arceneaux. Already established,

political demographics provide sources of viewers that news outlets would conform to in order to

provide themselves with a reliable base. Such is the nature of markets. While this surmise is open

to scrutiny by an opponent who wished to dedicate themselves to disproving individuals tend to

avoid news outlets that portray news in a way dissimilar to the viewer’s personal beliefs, as it

stands, it seems rational enough to continue this line of reasoning. Should any individual be in

doubt of the reality of this notion, perhaps a reflection on how often they seek to disprove their

own beliefs would be sufficient to convince them that humans tend to favor their convictions

over those of another.

With the determination that political polarization contributes to bias in the media, how

biased media contributes in its turn to political polarization can be discussed. The article

“Distorting the News? The Mechanisms of Partisan Media Bias and Its Effects on News

Production” by Doron Shultziner and Yelena Stukalin illustrates two general methods by which

partisan media influences its readers, each possessing more exact classifications. The first

method is described as “description bias” or “content bias” and is probably the more significant

and recognized form (Shultziner and Stukalin). According to the article, this form of bias
 Venneberg 5

includes what events papers choose to report on as well as how they choose to describe the

events in the articles and headlines (Shultziner and Stukalin). Actual bias within what a news

outlet decides to report on may be difficult to determine as different editors may believe that

certain stories hold more worth in their publication. Regardless, news outlets of one political

leaning will occasionally question the failure of outlets of the opposing political leaning to cover

a particular story and, in doing so, will attribute motive, an objectionable practice that further

deters individuals from the other media outlets. One such example of this dividing practice can

be found from Fox News on April 15th of this year. In his article which addresses the topic of

court-packing, Fox News writer Joseph A. Wulfsohn does just this by claiming the generalized

“mainstream media” will use Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s wish that Trump not nominate her

replacement because it suited them but will ignore her position that she was “not at all in favor of

that solution [court-packing] to what I [Ginsburg] see as a temporary situation” of the

conservative favoring split of the Supreme Court being 6-3 because it did not suit their position

(qtd. in Wulfsohn). While the fact that the generalized ‘mainstream media’ only used Ginsburg’s

position when it suited their stances is potentially true, the attribution of such a motive is not a

practice to be done within a civil society. It only divides and is akin to childish finger pointing.

The second kind of content bias which concerns how stories are portrayed, in contrast to the

largely subjective nature of the first, can show itself to be starkly evident when it does occur. A

relatively well-known example of this occurred in August of 2020 when, as an article from The

Hill describes, “CNN was ridiculed for a video caption . . . that read ‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful

Protests After Police Shooting’ . . . in front of a building engulfed in flames during protests over

the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha” (Concha). The words “Mostly Peaceful,” in this

example, are misleading. While it is entirely possible that a majority of attendants acted
 Venneberg 6

peacefully, the reality is that events come to be defined by most shocking details. Take, for

example, another event turned violent: the January 6th riot at the capitol. According to an

Associated Press article, approximately 25,000 attendants were at Trump’s rally while only 800

broke into the Capitol Building (Associated Press). If these numbers are accurate, the only 3.2%

of the attendants turned violent; however, it would be disingenuous to downplay the events of the

riot by emphasizing how relatively few individuals participated in it. The insurrection and the

rally are separate events; to conflate the two is dishonest. Similarly, the protests and the riots in

the CNN byline are different. The peace of one does not justify the violence of the other. This

form of media bias concerning what articles contain, of which the CNN example is but one of

countless of varying degrees of blatancy, can be found often in the chosen adjectives used within

an article or byline and is likely to hold the most significance because an individual is more

likely to favor the first source of news they encounter due to first impression bias. With regards

to only the misleading headlines of articles, individuals lacking free time will only skim article

headlines before dedicating themselves to one that strikes their interest. Those headlines that are

read but whose articles are passed by do not leave the reader without impression, however small

it may be.

The second form of media bias according to Shultziner and Stukalin’s article occurs in

editing and occurs particularly in print. This form is not given a particular name in the same way

the first form was as it is less exact and far more subtle. According to “Distorting the News? The

Mechanisms of Partisan Media Bias and Its Effects on News Production,” this second form

concerns how specific stories are highlighted within a newspaper, be it their being featured on

the first page, their being hidden away in the back, and even concerning the size of the area being

dedicated to the article (Shultziner and Stukalin). Again, actual bias using this mechanism is
 Venneberg 7

difficult to determine as it is understandable that an editor would choose to feature a story that

grabs attention while hiding away one less interesting, but that is not to say that a paper cannot

influence the opinions of their readers based on what stories are featured. This bias in how

individual stories is highlighted could be considered as a diluted form of the first form of content

bias: instead of merely ignoring newsworthy stories, they are simply hidden away. An example

of this will not be included, however, as actual bias is difficult to determine as well as the fact

this practice is nearly nonexistent in online and television news.

The two practices of media bias described by Shultziner and Stukalin, while holding

some ability to manipulate the viewers, are relatively minor in their significance and results.

There are, however, instances that sway their viewers so widely as to have real world

consequences. These consequences are partially to blame on individual’s habits to frequent only

one or a few news sources with slants parallel to one’s own. An individual caught up in an echo

chamber of similar ideas allows similar viewpoints to be repeated by multiple sources until they

take root in the viewer’s mind and manifest as actions and voiced opinions. This, however,

depends on one’s trust in their sources of media as well as the number of trusted sources

repeating the same position. The more one believes in what their news outlet is telling them and

the more outlets that repeat the same talking points, the more likely an individual is to allow such

ideas to manifest from themselves.

Trust in the media is generally low. According to a Gallup report titled “Americans

Remain Distrustful of Mass Media,” only 40% of respondents trusted the media a “great deal” or

a “fair amount” in 2020 (Brenan). When comparing political parties, the contrast is stark with

73% of Democrats trusting the media a “great deal” or a “fair amount” and independents and

Republicans at 36% and 10% respectively (Brenan). These numbers, while showing the trust
 Venneberg 8

individuals have of the media in general, they do not address the divided channels of particular

media sources. For that, the report cited earlier from the Pew Research Center titled “Political

Polarization & Media Habits” provides additional insight. According to that report, individuals

who are “mostly conservative” and “consistently conservative” tend to reserve their trust to

outlets that individuals being “mostly liberal” and “consistently liberal” hold “more distrust than

trust” in (Mitchell et al.). Such programs as these include, according to the report, Fox News,

The Sean Hannity Show, The Glenn Beck Program, and The Rush Limbaugh Show, among

other, lesser-known outlets (Mitchell et al.). This pattern of conservatives trusting outlets that

liberals distrust is also reversed at times as is the case with the New York Times, The

Washington Post, MSNBC, and, to a lesser extent, CNN (Mitchell et al.). These well

distinguished channels of trusted news sources focus particular, parallel positions in a way unlike

previous times of American history.

In his 1835 book, Democracy in America: Vol.1, Alexis de Tocqueville comments on the

freedom of the press in America. One observation that he makes concerns the sheer numbers of

papers, each with its own purposes (Tocqueville 177). As he puts it, “It is not that all the political

newspapers in the Union are ranged for or against the administration; but they attack it and

defend it by a hundred diverse means” (Tocqueville 177). Tocqueville describes this as a boon

for it prevents the general media from establishing “great currents of opinion” which, united,

could flood away the most fundamental structures of American society (177). Even a few

decades ago, there were respected individuals from which people on both sides of the aisle

received their news. Anchors like Walter Cronkite provided all politically divided Americans

with the same information and allowed discourse to begin on equal, informational footing. But

such great currents have arguably arrived; however, as the Pew Research report before describes,
 Venneberg 9

they have come as two distinct channels. Each with its own base, each with its own pull, and

both further contributing to political polarization.

The power of both channels of information have each shown themselves in differing

manners. It must also be kept in mind that the influence of each one is dependent on the methods

of media bias described by Shultziner and Stukalin, but also a more extreme method: a

dependance on factually unsound claims on news stories which goes beyond the manipulation of

news to full deception, either willfully malicious or willfully ignorant. Tocqueville observed that

individuals did not read newspapers for the opinions of the writer but for “knowledge of the

facts” (178). This sentiment seems to persist still today; individuals may want to hear the

opinions of people they admire like Oprah or the president, potentially even news personalities

that serve the dual role of presenting news and then providing engaging commentary, but

individuals watch the news to hear reality so they can form opinions of their own. For this

reason, Tocqueville also cautions that, “it is only in altering or in denaturing the facts that the

journalist can acquire some influence for his opinion” (178). This too persists, and ought to be

watched for carefully. Examples of these cases, like the examples of those for the methods of

media bias for Shultziner’s and Stukalin’s forms, are plentiful. A thorough list of examples

would be arduous and an inefficient use of time. Therefore, only two specific and relatively

recent examples will be described, each originating from its own great channel of information.

The first example concerns the claims of voter fraud and vote irregularities in key

battleground states. Such allegations persisted in conservative news outlets for months after the

election. The Washington Post, in a video it uploaded to YouTube, shows a compilation of Fox

News commentators perpetuating these claims of voter fraud and vote irregularities on their

show (Washington Post). Such allegations, persisting in conservative news outlets for months
 Venneberg 10

after the election, are likely to have, in tandem with individuals’ repetition of such claims on

social media platforms, led to the events on Capitol Hill on January 6th. While this correlation is

easily presumable, the role the media played in it is not exact and lacks sufficient, inarguable

evidence. Moreover, the events led to a moment, if only briefly, where individuals of both

political leanings denounced in unison the use of violence in this event. As a better example of

the divide among Americans, the court case Texas v. Pennsylvania can be turned to. This case,

according to the bill of complaint, was a lawsuit from the state of Texas against The

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin for

“significant and unconstitutional irregularities” in the defendant states, irregularities which had

been the focal point of conservative networks for weeks after the presidential election (United

States, Supreme Court, “Bill of Complaint” 3-4). This court case was never heard by the

Supreme Court of the United States, but the divide between Americans was made clear when

seventeen other states filed Amici Curiae briefs stating their support for the plaintiff, Texas, in its

lawsuit (United States, Supreme Court, “State of Missouri and 16 other States” 1). Others filed

separately in support of the defendants, and representatives in state and federal legislatures filed

in support of both sides, some in favor of Texas coming from the defendant states themselves

(United States, Supreme Court, “Bryan Cutler and . . . Kerry Benninghoff”). The split was clear

between those who were suspicious of the events of the election due to news stories of vote

irregularities, and those who saw no reason for suspicion. The sources of information, being

conservative vs. liberal, contributed greatly to this divide through what they reported and how

they reported it.

The second example is even more recent. In March of this year, Georgia passed SB 202

or the Election Integrity Act of 2021. From the gate, it received avid criticism. One such voice of
 Venneberg 11

condemnation came from CNN’s Don Lemon during his show. In his segment, Don Lemon

makes several claims concerning the Georgia voting law, many of which can be discredited upon

examination of the law itself. Firstly, Lemon claims that the bill is “just out and out racist” (7:53-

55) and “it is no different than Jim Crow” (8:55-9:00). Such rhetoric is divisive in its own right,

but mere division is not the significance of this news story, misrepresentation is. To equate SB

202 to Jim Crow is firstly a failure to represent the evils of Jim Crow. Upon examination of the

racist laws of the post-reformation south, one can clearly see how they issued different rules for

individuals on the basis of differing skin tones (Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia). This

is wholly unlike SB 202 which sets the same requirements for every voter of the state of Georgia.

Furthermore, Don Lemon makes claims that address specific aspects of SB 202. One claim made

is that the bill forbids “giving food or water to a voter waiting in line” illegal (Lemon, 4:22-30).

This claim refers to section 33 of the bill which forbids “the giving of any money or gifts . . .

[w]ithin 150 feet” of the polling building for the prevention of electioneering. This does not

forbid a voter to leave the 150-foot radius to get water, nor does it forbid, as the bill expressly

mentions, “making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle” for the voters in

line (Burns 73-74). Another claim of Lemon’s is that the bill “allow[s] unlimited challenges to

voter registrations” (4:29-34). This is true in the way the bill does not specify a limit to the

number of challenges within the section being addressed, section 15. But an omission of a

limiting parameter is not cause for concern as the abuse of this rule is impractical because the bill

specifies “The burden shall be on the elector making the challenge to prove” to a deciding judge

that the voter is ineligible, and the voter retains the right to appeal the decision should the judge

rule unfavorably (Senator Burns 24). This criticism of the failure to include a limiting parameter

would be a respectable one if Lemon had only framed it in such a way. Lemon also turns to
 Venneberg 12

President Biden to repeat other verifiably false claims such as the bill ends voting at 5pm and

absentee ballots except “under the most rigid circumstances” and fails to correct the President’s

misguided words, instead agreeing with him (6:53-7:30). The section mentioning 5pm, section

28, does little, if anything, to change the previously existing law. SB 202 merely changes the

general term “normal business hours” to “beginning at 9:00 A.M. and ending at 5:00 P.M.”

(Senator Burns 59). Furthermore, employers are already required to provide their employees with

“any necessary time off from his or her employment to vote” in any election or primary

according to Georgia State Code (Georgia). As for the concerns of absentee ballot restrictions,

these likely refer to SB 202’s decrease of drop boxes and the identification requirements. In the

bill’s second section, it is explained that “drop box[s] were first created by the State Election

Board as a pandemic response” (Georgia 5). The voting bill does not eradicate drop boxes, but

because their need will diminish as the threat of Covid wanes, Georgia’s Election Integrity Act

of 2021 saw it appropriate to diminish the number of drop boxes. The ID requirement, however,

is more controversial considering that some demographics are less likely to possess photo IDs

than others. The bill includes an identification requirement for an application to receive an

absentee ballot to avoid the “subjective signature-matching requirements” Georgia officials

previously relied solely on (Burns 4). But SB 202 does not limit absentee applicants to the

identifications of driver’s licenses, passports, and the state’s free IDs. If a voter lacks such

identifications as well as a social security number, the bill allows for the use of “a copy of a

current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document

that shows the name and address of such elector” (Georgia 58 & 64). It is presumable that any

potential voter will possess at least one of these forms of identification; the Georgia legislature

appears to have sought to ensure that the requirements can be met by anyone needing to. But as a
 Venneberg 13

final safeguard, should an application for an absentee ballot be received without such forms of

identification, a provisional ballot will be issued to allow officials time to verify the identity of

the applicant (Georgia 64). Don Lemon’s condemnation of Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of

2021 was only one of many. A criticism of a law is understandable. It can even be sufficiently

argued that it is the very point of a free press. But anchors and news articles that misrepresent

stories can have significant, real world results. Due to the controversy spurred by voices

repeating misguided outrage over SB 202, Major League Baseball decided to relocate its All-Star

game out of Atlanta. According to Natasha Chen, Melissa Alonso, and Alaa Elassar, the move

will have an economic impact of approximately $100 million dollars for the predominantly

African American city (Chen et al.; United States Census Bureau). Although such a result was

certainly not the intention of the press, the misrepresentation of the story led to such a result,

nonetheless.

Both of these examples, particularly their results, were not solely the fault of distinct

channels of trusted news. Both outcomes were also fostered by the words of the sitting presidents

as well as citizens exercising their freedom of speech on social media platforms. Furthermore,

mere distrust in the news media is not sufficient because even when one distrusts a news source,

if they limit themselves to that source, significant information and stories may still never be

heard. More civil discourse is needed within the United States; that is for certain. And it is not

solely the fault of partisan news media that civility can be found lacking within American

society. Its divides are perpetuated through individuals’ actions. Individuals cause partisan media

and it, in turn, divides them. Additionally, there are numerous other causes of the divisions in the

United States. These include the echo chambers one can find themselves in on social media,

flaws in algorithms that inadvertently guide internet searches, individuals who fund groups they
 Venneberg 14

favor, various cultural and regional differences, and even an individual’s tendencies to associate

with individuals of opposing viewpoints or not. None of these solely influence the current state,

and it is their combined effects that have led us to the current divisions. One must not forget that

the complexities of this issue are not limited to what news outlets one patronizes. But what can

be done? Change cannot come except through national, cultural reforms. Since the needed

change is so vast, it is unlikely to come anytime soon. But nations and societies are made up of

individuals working and living and thriving together. Change will not come when the focus is

directed on a national scale, but it can come gradually when each individual turns that focus

towards self-improvement. One must be vigilant and watch their own trusted media for signs of

bias. One must expand their horizons in an effort to understand the concerns of their opponents

and to hear new information. One must take the initiative and investigate the source material of

stories that concern them most. News outlets will not stop being biased until they are made to see

that their viewers will not tolerate dishonesty, and such a change starts with how everyday

Americans consume their news.

 Venneberg 15

Works Cited

Associated Press, The. News Channel 8, 25 Feb. 2021, wfla.com/news/national/police-say-800-

pro-trump-rioters-invaded-capitol/.

Arceneaux, Kevin. "The Rise of Partisan Media Is Not Accountable for the Growing Political

Polarization." Government Gridlock, edited by Margaret Haerens, Greenhaven Press,

2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010958215/OVIC?u=nilrc_bhc&sid=OVIC&xid=c2d4300c.

Accessed 16 Apr. 2021. Originally published as "Why You Shouldn't Blame Polarization

on Partisan News," Washington Post, 4 Feb. 2014. Gale Document No.: EJ3010958215

Brenan, Megan. “Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media.” Gallup, 30 Sept. 2020,

news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx.

Burns, et al. Georgia General Assembly. The State of Georgia, 2021,

legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498.

Chen, Natasha, et al. “MLB's decision to move its All-Star Game out of Georgia will have a

$100 million impact on the state, tourism official says.” CNN, 3 Apr. 2021,

cnn.com/2021/04/03/us/mlb-all-star-game-relocation-lost-money-economic-

impact/index.html.

Concha, Joe. “CNN ridiculed for 'Fiery But Mostly Peaceful' caption with video of burning

building in Kenosha.” The Hill, 27 August 2020, thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-

cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning.

Georgia. Georgia Code. Title 21, section 21-2-404. E laws.US, 20 Aug. 2013,

ga.elaws.us/law/section21-2-404.
 Venneberg 16

Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia. “Examples of Jim Crow Laws - Oct. 1960 - Civil

Rights.” Ferris State University, 2001,

ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples.htm.

Lemon, Don. “'Are you outraged?': See Don Lemon's reaction to lawmaker's arrest.” CNN, 2021,

cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/03/26/georgia-voting-bill-don-lemon-sot-vpx-ctn.cnn.

Mitchell, Amy, et al. “Political Polarization & Media Habits.” Pew Research Center: Journalism

& Media, 21 Oct. 2014, journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/.

Morales, Lymari. "Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias; More

perceive liberal bias than conservative bias." Gallup Poll News Service, 22 Sept. 2011.

Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A268427085/OVIC?

u=nilrc_bhc&sid=OVIC&xid=49266238. Accessed 16 Apr. 2021. Gale Document No.:

A268427085

"Opinions among US Adults Regarding the News Media's Responsibility for Political Divisions

and News ..." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2021. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/JFXETH676431690/OVIC?

u=nilrc_bhc&sid=OVIC&xid=e3bc7c60. Accessed 9 Apr. 2021. Gale Document No.:

JFXETH676431690

Shultziner, Doron, and Yelena Stukalin. “Distorting the News? The Mechanisms of Partisan

Media Bias and Its Effects on News Production.” Political Behavior, vol. 43, issue 1,

Mar. 2021, pp. 201-222. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09551-y.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. “On Freedom of the Press in the United States.” Democracy in America.

Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, The University of Chicago

Press, 2000, pp. 177.

 Venneberg 17

United States Census Bureau. “QuickFacts Atlanta city, Georgia.” United States Census Bureau,

July 2019, census.gov/quickfacts/atlantacitygeorgia.

United States, Supreme Court. “Texas v. Pennsylvania: Brief of State of Missouri and 16 other

States as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of

Complaint.” Supreme Court of the United States, 9 Dec 2020,

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-

09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of

%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf.

United States, Supreme Court. “Texas v. Pennsylvania: Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici

Curiae Brief and Brief for Bryan Cutler, Speaker of Pennsylvania House of

Representatives, and Kerry Benninghoff, Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of

Representatives as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff.” Supreme Court of the United

States, 10 Dec. 2020,

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163389/20201210145527909_Motion%20and

%20Brief%20House%20Leaders%20SCOTUS%20Amicus%20Texas%20v%20Pa%20et

%20al.pdf.

United States, Supreme Court. “Texas v. Pennsylvania: Motion for Leave to File Bill of

Complaint and Bill of Complaint.” SCOTUS Filings, 7 Dec. 2020,

texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Washington Post, The. “Trump allies allege widespread voter fraud then refuse to provide

evidence.” YouTube, Nov. 18, 2021, youtube.com/watch?v=aKjP0UfrHi8.

 Venneberg 18

Wulfsohn, Joseph A. “Media ignores RBG objection to court-packing after hyping 'dying wish'

to keep seat vacant before election.” Fox News, 15 April 2021, foxnews.com/media/ruth-

bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-dying-wish-court-packing.