A CBS reportโs timing, language, and a notable omission of a key line from a written article have raised concerns about potential bias, suggesting that CBS may be downplaying the legitimacy of election security concerns in favor of a more dismissive narrative. On Thursday, October 31, 2024, during the 7 p.m. Eye on America segment,, CBS News focused on Arizonaโs recent investments in election security. Anchored by Ed O’Keefe, the segment explored efforts in Arizonaโs Coconino and Pinal counties to reassure voters through upgraded facilities and new technologies.
Key Points in CBSโs Report
The CBS segment highlighted Arizonaโs significant investments in election infrastructure, such as updated vote-counting facilities and GPS-tracked ballot boxes, with Coconino Countyโs election director describing these changes as โbrutal transparency.โ However, while this narrative may reassure some viewers, the tone of the report seems to discredit public concerns about election integrity.
In the video, O’Keefe asks, โYou had to spend more than a million dollars to disprove a lie?โ This line, absent from the written article, dismisses election skepticism by framing these concerns as โlies.โ Such an omission might suggest CBS sought to soften the tone in writing while keeping a more pointed stance for the broadcast. Viewers who only read the article miss this line entirely, leading to an inconsistency that could affect public trust, particularly on sensitive topics.
Framing Election Skepticism as โDenialismโ
The CBS report uses the term โelection denialismโ to describe public skepticism about election integrity, which could come across as dismissive. Historically, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns about election security. The bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, identified absentee voting as a potential source of fraud nearly two decades ago (PolitiFact). By labeling current concerns as โdenialism,โ CBS risks alienating those who view election security as a legitimate issue rather than a purely political one.
O’Keefeโs assertion about needing to โdisprove a lieโ further frames public concerns as unfounded, which may come across as dismissive to viewers with genuine concerns about transparency and ballot verification.
The Appeal to Technology: Reassurance or Oversimplification?
CBS places a heavy emphasis on Arizonaโs technological investments, like GPS-tracked ballot boxes and closed-system tabulators, as solutions to public skepticism. While these upgrades improve physical security, they donโt address every aspect of election integrity. For instance, GPS tracking prevents tampering with ballot boxes but doesnโt verify the authenticity of each ballot inside. Likewise, closed-system tabulators are presented as secure, but cybersecurity experts at events like DEF CON have shown that voting machines can still be tampered with even without internet access (CSO Online).
By focusing on these technological solutions, CBS may be implying that these upgrades are sufficient to allay concerns. However, a more balanced approach might acknowledge that technology alone cannot address all issues surrounding ballot authenticity and chain of custody.
Historical Context of Absentee Voting Skepticism
The report overlooks the historical bipartisan skepticism surrounding absentee voting. Over the years, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised concerns about absentee votingโs susceptibility to fraud, as highlighted in the Carter-Baker Commissionโs report (PolitiFact). While perspectives have shifted in recent yearsโespecially among Democrats, who now more widely support mail-in votingโCBS frames todayโs skepticism as if itโs a recent, politically driven phenomenon. This approach could miss the broader context of longstanding concerns about expanded voting methods.
Impact of O’Keefeโs Role and Media Consistency
As a senior White House and political correspondent, Ed OโKeefeโs reporting on election integrity has the potential to shape public perception significantly. The inconsistency between his pointed question in the video and its omission from the written article could be viewed as CBS selectively shaping its message. Media Bias/Fact Check describes CBS as left-leaning, often favoring narratives critical of conservative viewpoints, which may lead some viewers to feel the network is framing election concerns to fit a particular agenda.
For those who watched the video, the tone on election skepticism could deepen a sense of mistrust in how media covers these issues. Conversely, readers of the article might receive a less confrontational account, creating a divide in how the story is perceived. Such inconsistencies can deepen skepticism, especially when the public seeks clarity and balanced information.
Moving Toward More Balanced Election Coverage
In times like these, balanced reporting is essential. A comprehensive report might have presented both the technological upgrades and the historical context around election security concerns, including voices from voters with a range of perspectives on election integrity. Addressing concerns openly rather than framing them as โdenialismโ could foster greater understanding and trust among the public.
As Americans prepare to cast their votes, the mediaโs role in shaping public understanding is crucial. Consistent and transparent coverage from outlets like CBS can bridge divides and encourage trust, while inconsistent narratives risk amplifying public skepticism. In sensitive times, balanced reporting is vital for informing and uniting the electorate.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #ElectionIntegrity #MediaBias #ArizonaVoting
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/monthโBecome a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/monthโBecome a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply