Whether it’s deliberate manipulation or just a sloppy resort to groupthink, Nancy Lavin’s recent article on Rhode Island Current is a good illustration of how issues can be framed to support the preferences of the powerful. Note this section:

Proponents tout these expansions as ways to improve voter turnout and access while easing the pressure on election administrators on Election Day itself.

But getting voters to embrace those changes remains a work in progress.

Distrust of mail-in ballots continues, thanks in part to misinformation spread during the 2020 presidential election.

Astonishingly, Lavin goes on to cite mail-ballot-queen Ana Quezada’s campaign manager, Justin Roias, as an expert, but without bothering to find anybody with a contrary view.

In particular, note the framing.  Innovations in voting are simply “ways to improve voter turnout and access while easing pressure on election administrators.”  See, it’s just a practical change to encourage civic engagement, and suspicion of these innovations has to do with “misinformation,” meaning Donald Trump and those wicked MAGA Republicans.

Apart from failing to include alternative views, Lavin doesn’t check basic facts from the activists. For instance, one claim by which Roias minimizes his candidate’s peculiar mail-ballot success is that “Quezada’s supporters were older and may have had mobility or transportation limitations,” but the mail ballot data doesn’t support his suggestion, and it’s easy to check.

Data from the Secretary of State’s office shows that the average age of mail-ballot voters is 67.  In precincts in which Quezada had a majority of mail ballot votes, it’s 59.  Looking at ballots that appear to have been picked up by her husband, the average age is 51. Make of these facts what you will; I offer them as one example of a statement an obviously biased source provided that the journalist did not verify.

As with every issue on which journalists appear to take the progressive, Democrat point of view for granted, one gets the feeling that they find the “distrust” from the other side to be inexplicable because they’ve declined to investigate whether it’s justified.

Featured image by Paulette Vautour on Unsplash.