Is Joe Biden too old to run for a second term? Is US Senator John Fetterman (D/Pennsylvania) too infirm to serve in Congress because he suffered a stroke in May of 2022, and recently checked himself into a hospital for treatment of depression? Some say these questions are legitimate and newsworthy, while others argue that the questions are simply a pretext for a partisan take down of these leaders.
We’ll look at a couple of media stories addressing the above questions to explore the difference between “objective news reporting” and “opinion news.” While these two forms of journalism have very different purposes, many of us treat them as one and the same—sometimes because we don’t know better, sometimes because we have been misled, and sometimes because we knowingly do so. Regardless, the consequences have been dire for our country: we have become more divided, and our democracy has been weakened.
Before we jump into the examples, a few terms should be defined: “objective news reporting” [hereinafter “objective news”] and “opinion news.”
Objective News Reporting
Wikipedia
“Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up their own mind about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret those on their own. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writer’s opinion or personal beliefs.”
Opinion News
City College of New York, Introduction to Journalism
“‘Opinion news’ gives you information from the point of view of the writer, or presenter. It may include facts, and reporting, but it differs from a news story in that it lays out an individual’s ideas and often their biases. Opinion is, essentially, someone’s argument for a certain point of view about a specific topic.”
Example of Opinion News: Tucker Carlson Tonight
Recently on Fox News (February 28, 2023), Tucker Carlson devoted a large portion of his show (Tucker Carlson Tonight) to addressing Joe Biden’s age and John Fetterman’s stroke. He explained that the Democratic party was in an “open war with nature” over the subject of age. Carlson noted that Biden would be 86 if he finished a second term and would be 82 on Inauguration Day. Later, he declared, “82-year-old men should not be running countries. They’re not strong enough mentally or physically.”
He then showed a clip of a recent Biden speech in Poland where the President mangled a few words before gathering himself. Carlson noted, “So we’ve played clips like that a million times for you over the past few years. We can play a million more because Joe Biden talks like that every day. At this point, it’s how he talks. Joe Biden is losing his ability to speak.”
The screen also displayed a picture of Biden, with the quotation, “Age is just a number” implying that it was the President who spoke these words. At various times, the banners on the screen read, “The Left’s Fantasy Land”, “We need leaders who accept biological reality,” and “Age is more than a number.”
As to Senator Fetterman, Carlson again pointed out that the Democrats were denying the reality about Fetterman’s stroke.
“Do you remember this fall when that NBC reporter, a woman called Dasha Burns, dared to point out the John Fetterman’s stroke had damaged him? Well, of course it had damaged him. Everyone could see it had damaged him. But to Fetterman, his wife and the rest of the Democratic establishment and the rest of the press corps, saying something like that out loud was more offensive than any obscenity.
‘Well, she’s [Dasha Burns] an ableist,’ howled Giselle Fetterman because someone had correctly pointed out that her husband was no longer able because he had a stroke. In other words, reality intruded on Mrs. Fetterman’s fantasy, and therefore, reality itself had to be shouted down and destroyed. You’re seeing an awful lot of this attitude, that exact attitude, recently from the people in charge. It’s not a healthy sign.”
Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson Tonight, February 28, 2023
As the show continued, Carlson interviewed Candace Owens, a prominent conservative author, talk show host, political commentator, and producer. Carlson noted he wasn’t attacking Biden because of his age; rather he was attacking Biden and the Democrats because they weren’t recognizing that he is too old and unfit to serve. Owens validated this point of view by declaring that Biden was obviously “mentally incapacitated” and “showing signs of dementia.” Carlson then criticized Biden’s and Fetterman’s spouses for not doing more to protect their husbands from the dangers of jobs they were no longer capable of performing. Owens characterized these women as “monsters”, noting also that Fetterman was “obviously mentally incapacitated.”
Tucker Carlson’s treatment of Joe Biden’s age and John Fetterman’s stroke is a clear example of “opinion reporting.” It’s Carlson’s view that 82-year-olds shouldn’t be running countries because they’re not strong enough mentally or physically. It’s also his view that Democrats are in denial about the reality of Biden’s age and the fact that Fetterman has been damaged by a stroke. He showed a clip of Biden flubbing a line in a speech and then exaggerated by saying there are “millions more” of such examples. Carlson made no attempt to provide balance to the story. For instance, he might have mentioned that Biden has a speech impediment that causes him, at times, to mangle his words. He might have mentioned that Biden recently passed a physical and has been declared by his physician to be fit for office. Or, he could have acknowledged that Biden recently delivered a vigorous “State of the Union” speech with virtually no flubs or garbled statements.
Carlson’s guest Candace Owens was used not to add balance and alternative perspectives to the reporting, but rather to validate and double down on the opinions and points of view presented by Carlson. As “opinion news,” his presentation was designed and intended to persuade, and it did so effectively. However, it was far from a balanced, unbiased, fact-verified presentation intended to equip the viewer to answer the questions for himself or herself.
Don’t get me wrong—opinion news is valid. It’s okay for a presenter to attempt to persuade an audience of his or her opinion, as long as the audience members realize that it’s only an opinion and that the treatment shouldn’t be regarded as an objective, balanced, and unbiased presentation of facts. The problem, as we’ll explore shortly, is when audience members mistakenly regard opinion news as objective journalism; and this problem is compounded when audience members start to prefer opinion news over the work of validating facts and reconciling perspectives different than their own.
Examples of Objective News Reporting
So how have “objective news” stories treated the same questions? I couldn’t find a single story that addressed both Biden’s age and Fetterman’s stroke, but I did find several accounts that attempt to answer the questions about Biden and Fetterman in a balanced, objective, and unbiased manner.
On November 19, 2022, The New York Times ran an article discussing what 10 experts on aging had to say about what the next six years might look like for a person of the President’s age. The article began by noting that the President would be 86 at the end of his second term, if re-elected, and that his critics and even some Democrats have expressed concerns. It goes on to mention what the President has going for him, including that, “he is highly educated, has plenty of social interaction, a stimulating job that requires a lot of thinking, is married, and has a strong family network — all factors that, studies show, are protective against dementia and conducive to healthy aging. He does not smoke or drink alcohol and, according to the White House, he exercises five times a week. He also has top-notch medical care.”
The article also cites studies, longevity statistics, and discusses the various health problems the President is currently being treated for: “He takes prescription medicine to control his cholesterol and atrial fibrillation — an irregular heartbeat. He has experienced ‘increasing frequency and severity of “throat clearing”‘ while speaking, probably due to acid reflux, and he had some stiffness in his gait.” There are also verbal stumbles and slippage of memory, which are usual with age, but not considered a real deficit by the aging experts.
Other articles in recent months have addressed the question of whether Biden is too old to run again: Washington Post, “Biden-turning 80, faces renewed age questions as he weighs reelection,” November 11, 2022; The Hill, “Biden can’t escape questions on his age,” June 22, 2022; NPR, “Biden, turning 80, faces an age-old question,” November 22, 2022. All of these articles cite polls that indicate a large majority of Americans – and a significant percentages of Democrats – believe Biden is too old to run again. The articles also name and quote various leaders or prominent individuals who have expressed concerns or come out against a run. The articles don’t express the opinion or attempt to prove that he is too old; nor do they opine or try to argue that he is irrefutably fit to serve. Rather, the stories simply report on the polls and the statements being made by others in order to inform the reader.
As to John Fetterman’s stroke, there are several articles that report in a balanced and unbiased manner—among them: The New York Times, “Fetterman, Recovering After Stroke, Labors to Adjust to Life in the Senate,” February 10, 2023; and CNN Politics, “Fetterman checked himself into hospital ‘to receive treatment for clinical depression,’ office says” February 16, 2023. These articles cover Fetterman’s challenges. given his stroke, in serving as a member of Congress, and his newest challenge of seeking treatment for depression. The articles don’t express opinions as to whether Fetterman is disabled or unfit to serve in Congress. Rather, they discuss his challenges and the accommodations he has been provided to help perform his duties. The articles also shed some light on the connection between Fetterman’s stroke and the need to be treated for depression. That is, poststroke depression (PSD) is common, affecting approximately one third of stroke survivors at any one time after stroke.
Conflating Opinion News with Objective News Creates Problems
We can obviously see that objective news stories and opinion news stories have entirely different purposes. One form tries to persuade us to embrace a point of view by building the case for that point of view and leaving out information that might contradict or complicate that point of view. The other form tries to inform us in an objective, balanced, and unbiased manner, leaving it to each of us to decide what to make of the information. One form gives us the conclusion and the argument for that conclusion; the other form gives us the information and leaves it to each of us to draw our own conclusions.
The problem arises when opinion news is conflated with objective news, either because many of us mistakenly do so, or because many of us have come to prefer opinion news over the more difficult work of validating facts, reconciling multiple perspectives, and perhaps challenging our beliefs and values.
It’s easy to mistake opinion news as objective journalism. News media outlets have become adept at presenting information in a manner that appears to be balanced, objective, and unbiased while at the same time persuading us of the conclusion we should draw. The Tucker Carlson Show example we reviewed is more direct and obvious in its use of opinion news. However, if you go online to Ad Fontes Media and examine the reliability and bias ratings of various media outlets, you’ll see that virtually every outlet has some degree of conservative or liberal bias. Also, no media source is perfect, or even close to perfect, in terms of its reliability score.
One problem here is that we don’t know when we’re being misled or misinformed. We read a convincing argument with lots of facts and figures, and we feel we have all the necessary information on the matter. Case closed. However, in trying to convince us of a conclusion, the opinion writer is free to stretch the truth, omit critical facts, or even try to make us angry or afraid towards other points of view. For instance, it has recently come to light that several Fox News hosts continued to tell their audiences that the November 2020 Presidential election was stolen, despite the fact that they knew this not to be true.
This problem surfaced when I searched and read the objective journalism articles regarding Biden’s age and Fetterman’s stroke. I began to note inaccuracies and problems regarding Carlson’s opinion news reporting. It’s not accurate to say that Biden and the Democrats are in denial about Biden’s age. Polling of Democrats clearly indicates that high percentages of party members are concerned about Biden’s age. And, on the PBS news Hour, February 8, 2023, Biden said: “Look, I’m a great respecter of fate. I would be completely, thoroughly honest with the American people if I thought there was any health problem, anything that would keep me from being able to do the job. And so, we’ll see. But, you know, I just — I think people have to just watch me.”
Both Carlson and his guest Owens stated that Biden was suffering from dementia, was mentally incapacitated, or was losing his ability to speak. Yet, they offered no medical diagnosis or other proof to back up these statements other than anecdotal evidence of slips and flubs. In fact, Biden has recently completed a medical examination that has found him to be fully fit for office. As to Fetterman, Carlson called out Democrats and Fetterman’s wife for not accepting the reality that the stroke had damaged him; and Owens said Fetterman was obviously mentally incapacitated. Neither provided any proof of permanent damage or disability; and, in fact, Fetterman’s doctors are saying his prospects for recovering from the stroke are good, and that he will recover from the stroke-related depression.
Only by delving into objective journalism accounts was I able to see that Carlson made unsubstantiated statements, omitted critical information, and didn’t have the open and shut case he was arguing. I also realized that with opinion news we’re largely at the mercy of the presenter. We’re being told what to think, rather than to think for ourselves.
A Preference for Opinion News is Bad for America
So here’s the more pernicious issue: In recent years, many Americans have come to prefer opinion news over the more difficult work of validating facts, reconciling multiple perspectives, and perhaps challenging our beliefs and values. Let’s provide some evidence for this claim.
In a YouGovAmerica survey published on April 5, 2022, Americans were asked which media organizations they trust. Results of this survey are noted below.
- For Republicans, the most trusted source is Fox News (at 53%). The least trusted sources for Republicans are cable channels MSNBC and CNN, the various broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, NBC), and the New York Times and the Washington Post. As to these media sources, trust only ranged from 9-18% for Republicans.
- Democrats trust a wider range of media outlets, but the major ones are PBS, CNN, the three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), The New York Times, and The Washington Post. The sources least trusted by Democrats are Fox News, One America News, and Newsmax.
- When Republicans were asked which media personalities they trusted, Tucker Carlson came in first at 65%, followed by Laura Ingraham at 61%, and Sean Hannity at 59%. All three of these individuals have shows that rely almost exclusively on opinion news and commentary.
- When Democrats were asked about media personalities they trusted, Anderson Cooper (CNN) came in first at 75%, followed by Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) at 65%, and George Stephanopoulos (ABC) at 64%. Both Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow have shows which use opinion news
To get a more precise measure of the extent to which the above media personalities report in a reliable and unbiased manner, let’s look at the most recent numbers from Ad Fontes Media. For “reliability” the range is from 0 to 64, and the higher the score the higher the reliability; scores above 40 are generally good, and below 24 are generally problematic. For bias, the range is from -42 to +42, with negative numbers indicating a left bias and positive numbers indicating a conservative bias. The higher the number, the greater the bias; thus, lower bias scores are better.
| Personality | Reliability | Bias |
|---|---|---|
| Tucker Carlson | 20.21 | +23.38 |
| Laura Ingraham | 20.01 | +25.71 |
| Sean Hannity | 16.65 | +23.44 |
| Anderson Cooper | 39.22 | -13.27 |
| Rachel Maddow | 37.94 | -16.75 |
| George Stephanopoulos | 43.53 | -7.38 |
Thus, when we look at the six most trusted media personalities in America, five of them have low reliability and high bias scores that indicate they lean to opinion news rather than objective journalism.
I don’t want to overstate the problem, as there is abundant evidence that most Americans (especially when we include Independents) continue to use and trust media sources that have high reliability and low bias ratings. This is so because many Americans use and trust both opinion news and objective news, rather than relying solely on opinion news. The problem is that the most trusted news personalities are among the least reliable and most biased. This is a trend we should be concerned about.
Putting It All Together
This deep dive into opinion news and objective news indicates that many Americas appear to be using and trusting opinion news, either exclusively or in conjunction with objective news. We’ve come to see that Democrats and Republicans trust and rely upon entirely different media sources, are differentially informed, and are being cultivated to embrace conclusions rather than think for ourselves. We are consequently increasingly divided and angry at one another, as there’s no middle ground or conciliatory thinking coming from those seeking to persuade us of their own conclusions. Worse, we threaten our very democracy when we abandon the hard work of thinking and deciding for ourselves in favor of embracing conclusions built on bias, selected information, and a desire to control our thinking.
In an upcoming post we’ll examine what we can do to address and reverse this trend.
Leave a Reply