This article below in the Washington Post is a great example of the how the media does not understand what it is saying. Or, how blatantly and un-apologetically biased they are. Probably both. The media is on a kick to attack a concept in journalism called 'both-siderism'. Thats where supposedly, media outlets give fair treatment to both sides of an issue. In concept, naturally a good idea. However, the media is attacking the idea for obvious reasons, it will put them under much needed scrutiny. This article continues that attack, using obvious tactics of the craft to simultaneously slam their political enemies and push their political narratives. First, this article is supposedly about Sarah Palin's lawsuit against The New York Times. The political media narrative is that Palin is a political enemy, therefore she must be attacked. In the article, the author states, this is 'an erroneous claim' Palin is making in her case. Check narrative box one. Next, the author uses the story to reiterate another political narrative, and remind readers that Republicans are violent and attack Democrats ,too. So he uses supports the 'both-siderism' requirement to include the Gabby Giffords' shooting in 2011 with a shooting of Republican lawmakers at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. in 2017.  He uses 'a' shooting to describe the baseball game shooting in 2017 and 'the' shooting to describe the Giffords' shooting in 2011.  Small, but important, attempt to reduce one event and heighten the importance of another. Check narrative box 2. Next he sneaks into both-siderism criticism by using the word 'filter'.  Media, under both-siderism, must 'filter ' the news he says.  Both-siderism isn't a 'filter'. It is the opposite of a 'filter'. It is supposed to say here is the news, period. One side says this about the news, the other side says that. What the media currently does is 'filter' the news under political narrative headlines and present it to their audience as one-siderism fact, which at best, it is opinion. At worst, a lie.  Offering a new definition  of a 'filter' enables the author to present both-siderism in a negative light.  Check narrative box 3. Next he justifies how the NYT attempted to hide the horrific fact of the Bernie Sanders Democrat baseball practice shooter, James Hodgkinson,  under the cover of the Gabby Giffords' shooting. They wanted to show this is just like what happened to Gabby at the hands of Republicans and specifically Sarah Palin. The media in 2011 decided to blame the shooting of Gabby Giffords on Republican emotion built up by Sarah Palin. Narrative box 1 hit again, ding, ding, ding.

  There was never any association with this shooter, this map they reference reveals nothign unusual about Arizona and the Republican party or any evidence to assert he was motivated by Sarah Palin.  But, the unrestricted media made something out of nothing and repeated it over and over again. This was and is all BS and is a main point of the case against the NYT. Re-emphasizing the 2011 shooting incitement by Sarah Palin narrative, box 4 checked. Next he goes on to say there is no Republican condemnation of Jared Lee Loughner opening fire in a parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl.  Republicans are heartless narrative box 5 checked. Not true, Republicans did condemn this violence.  They did not agree that Palin had anything to do with it.  Include the death of a 9 year old girl for compassion and now you have Republicans killing 9 year old message.  Narrative box 6 checked. Next he goes into detail of the case and blames both-siderism for the incident even happening.  If the NYT editorial board hadn't tried to hard to be fair, this never would have happened.  Narrative box 7 checked.  That premise is laughable! Finally, the author in his later attempt to dismiss the NYT lawsuit, narrative box 8 checked, when he says Loughner didn’t appear to be “incited by Sarah Palin or anyone else”.  Thus, he confirms the ridiculous nature of the claim he previously made and the media has made for a decade and why Plain should win the case.  In his attempt to help the NYT, he also confirms the media bias "that we, or I at least, have tended to associate [hate speech] with the right". At least 8 favorite media political narratives exercised in this one article. Whew, its hard to keep up with them all.

When then-New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet revised the June 2017 editorial that prompted Sarah Palin’s lawsuit now playing out in a Manhattan federal court, he had a specific goal in mind. “He wanted to make the important point that violent rhetoric used by both Democrats and Republicans about their political foes raises the temperature,” said a Times lawyer in the trial, “and creates an environment where a deranged person might be more likely to do something violent to a political opponent.” Palin v. New York Times is about an erroneous claim, the vaunted “actual malice” standard and fact-checking practices at the Times. But it’s also about the totemic insistence of the mainstream media to filter breaking-news events through insights on “both sides” of the American political divide. That particular model comes away looking tattered. More From The Washington Post (subscription required):