Watching election coverage the topic of the integrity of the vote has come up multiple times. Trump has always claimed the only way he could ever “lose” was if Democrats cheated. Since the Constitutional vestigial organ we know as the Electoral College allowed Trump to slither into the WH in 2016 he didn’t talk about it much for a while. However, as 2020 loomed on his radar he ramped up the “election fraud” talk again and once his worst fears (Biden as his opponent) were realized the machine went into overdrive.
During the election season but especially after VOTER FRAUD was a stock part of any interview or appearance Trump made. He played it up to the point where he incited a violent mob and aimed it at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Such is the power of language. Rhetoric, even if bullsh*t can take hold in people, especially those who don’t make the effort to be well-informed. Trump has never let up since and complaining massive voter fraud took place in 2020 became an article of faith not just with his hardcore MAGAs but with more regular Republicans too. And a lot of Independents.
What has ALWAYS infuriated me is how journalists so blithely and willingly went along with helping Trump park his bullsh*t message in the public’s mind. By the continued, even as I write this use of the adjective “Widespread.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word thusly:
1. widely used or prevalent and 2. widely spread out. #1 includes an addition that’s relevant to this discussion with the example widespread public interest.
For years we’ve heard journalists debunk Trump’s claims BUT using just the kind of language that’s music to his ears. While Trump has clearly and significantly devolved one thing he used to have a good dose of was marketing savvy. Being able to paint a picture so to speak. So when journalists have, EVERY time they talk about this subject use the words “No widespread voter fraud” they paint a picture. As in ‘Well there’s no doubt there’s notable voter fraud out there, but at least it isn’t widespread.’ However the implication is that there’s more than just a little of it going on. AND that it’s enough that if we’re not careful could change the outcome of an election! That is what people take away from hearing “No widespread voter fraud.” They think ‘Not yet but it’s bad enough it could blossom at any time.’ That’s why I’m so furious with journalists over their joint choice to use the phrase they’ve insisted on using. Worse, it seems like they haven’t learned a goddamned thing and will keep doing so! Why?
Maybe it’s on orders from the Executive Suites at news outlets. Maybe it’s just laziness. “No widespread voter fraud” is easier to say than “No significant voter fraud,” or “No notable voter fraud,” or even more wordier but accurate “only minimal cases of voter fraud were found.” Try it. Look, I’ve often said that the bulk of journalists, at least the “talent” we see on TV have a lazy streak in them. But it’s a story that’s gotten a lot of attention for years and those words “No widespread voter fraud” are burned into the public’s brains.
The problem is the insistence on that simple phrase doesn’t accurately tell the story. It’s not truthful. In reality only a handful of cases are found in any election. I’m serious. Few potential cases are identified and not all of those wind up getting prosecuted. I recall former Kansas Gov. KKKris KKKobach getting tasked to a high profile gig of rooting out all the voter fraud in the country and he could even find enough cases to hit double digits. Even more embarrassingly there were more Republicans prosecuted than Democrats! Funny (or not I guess) that that never seems to come up when “No widespread voter fraud” is being talked about by the chattering class.
“Widespread” is a freaking LOADED word. These journalists profess to be professionals and so they should damn well know how the language they use when reporting is received by those who hear or read what they say. “Widespread” IMPLIES a helluva lot more than the actual handful of cases identified each election cycle. The attempted qualifier of “No” in “No widespread voter fraud” doesn’t change the implication there’s a pretty significant amount of voter fraud that does go on. But, they “assure us” it’s not “widespread.” I call bullshit.
Voter fraud is in fact minimal. It will be this election too despite what Trump is (again) claiming as reported by USA Today. Trump has been setting up his case for months just like anyone with half a brain knew he would. Trump has been saying if he wins everything was hunky-dory and that it was the most fair and secure election in the history of elections. However if he loses he didn’t really lose because Democrats “cheated” and engineered “massive” voter fraud. In reality, this year like in every other election the amount will be miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Negligible.
“No widespread voter fraud” is such a simple, innocent sounding phrase yet it’s done incalculable damage to this country. It’s painted an inaccurate picture as familiar to Americans as George Washington’s face on the dollar bill. It implies voter fraud is quite a bit more than rare. However the TRUTH is that it is in fact rare. Worse, as I’ve already said journalists don’t seem to have any intention of changing how they refer to this. However from where I sit whether they meant to or not journalists were complicit in helping Trump assemble his mob and aim it at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. And they’ve been equally complicit in the years since in helping Trump undermine confidence in the integrity of our elections.
Voter fraud is almost non-existent but by use of that awful phrase that should be banned from every news report they have done exactly what Trump has wanted. Sow doubt. Because they have refused to make the point over and over the FACT that voter fraud is almost non-existent. That nationwide out of all the votes cast only a few dozen wind up getting seriously investigated by prosecutors, and less than ten or twelve ever even get prosecuted!
I’m a luddite when it comes to twitter and facebook and following the social media feeds of big name people like the journalists we read and hear in the national news. So I have an “ask” for those who are good at all this stuff. Not just once, but over and over go on their feeds and take them to task using the thoughts I have provided. How strongly you put it is up to you. Personally I’d call them lazy and (I since I truly believe it have done great harm) but maybe, just maybe if enough people start calling them out where other people can see it it might eventually start to change the conversation. One can always hope.
How about so little voter fraud that it is statistically zero. Because that is where it is at.
“Virtually no voter fraud” is the same number of words and accurate if a journalist were to care about being accurate. If they are concerned about criticism from conservatives (which they get anyway despite using their benign chosen phrase) they could add a sentence or two citing GOP efforts that have come up dry. Or actual statistics on the numbers of cases that have been prosecuted which confirms your comment that statistically it’s zero.
Most cases of fraud, maybe all lol, have been the GQP cheating
Agree. Insignificant. And it wouldn’t hurt to point out those who DO get caught. And the fact that most of them are Rs!!!
Dang!
Perhaps their use of ‘widespread’ is a clever ‘click bait trigger’ for the impressionable and or gullible.
Denis, you make a fantastically good, valid point. Unfortunately, I am stuck in the past because I don’t twit and I don’t tik. I check FB once a week to keep up with family and friends in other states (and countries!). I don’t watch TV nor do I get newspapers and I might check CNN once a day-ish.
I am getting an insane amount of Republican ads about “secure your vote” and “report fraud in Georgia (eyeroll)”. That says they are at least worried, if not desperate. Interesting, huh…….
They keep raising it as a shibboleth to frighten people.
“Only minimal cases of voter fraud were found.” , And virtually all of it, by republicans, is the actual truth but, of course, they can’t panic anyone with that, so they lie.
They want it to be ‘a thing’ like ‘the economy’ or ‘the border’.
All their statements are designed to mislead, misinform and panic, not to educate or inform.
Was going to suggest laziness. Which is a good chunk of it. And why try something new… when RW or republican views and words are easier. No fuss no… democracy. But the checks keep clearing at the bank… so no biggie!!!
Part of what bugs me is that even using their stock phrase they take continual sh*t from conservatives anyway. The only way conservatives would stop attacking journalists is if they started hyping cases of voter fraud in a manner that makes it look like there’s a lot of it that’s gone on. Given that why not just report precisely and accurately? I’d like to think it’s ONLY laziness but I can’t shake the belief this is an agreed upon trope in journalism to help them ensure “issues” that can create their precious “horse race” coverage of an election that really shouldn’t be close at all. Money. Not just for the bosses in the boardrooms and executive offices but for the “talent” as well.
The damage to democracy, not just ours but everyone’s around the world (because the U.S. leads the way for good or ill) doesn’t factor into the equation. The old saying “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil comes to mind” because what’s taken place is a form of evildoing. Damaging the public trust of elections in the name of profit and fatter bank accounts of a handful of people. And that includes people most of us pay attention to. I hear MSNBC hosts using the phrase too.
If I could have two minutes of talking with Lawrence O’Donnell I’d hit him with my thoughts and challenge him to use his unique ability to call attention to the damage the phrase he, Maddow and journalism in general has done.
Dennis, I’m so glad you raised this. I’ve been wondering about it for years.
I think it’s important to realize, given the weasel minds of the pundits (or editors) that make these word choices, that technically, “no widespread voting fraud” is not a lie. I mean, it’s true, there IS not widespread voting fraud. The fact that there’s virtually no voting fraud at all just shows that “no widespread voting fraud” is extremely misleading, and deliberately so. In a sense it covers their ass 100 x over (with respect to objections from the Trump side) WITHOUT technically being a lie.
“Widespread” is a spatial/geographical term, not a “how often” frequency term.