(Note – this post is about the media – not about the candidates or the political parties).
- “In blood red Montana, ObamaCare repeal to blame for close race”
- “Montana house race is a gauge on Trump, test for Democrats”
- “House elections to test whether Trump is hurting Republicans”
- “A populist test in Trump country“
- NY Times: “The Montana contest was the second special House election this year in a conservative district…” and further spins, near the end of the article, about Montana being hostile terrain for Democrats.
And so on. There are more headlines implying Montana is a Republican state. Except Montana has a long history of electing Democrats 3 to 1 over Republicans for Federal office:
- Since 1900, Montana has elected 14 Democratic Senators and 5 Republican Senators
- Since 1900, Montana has elected 15 Democratic Congressional Representatives and 5 Republican Representatives. The State has only a single Congressional Representative.
- Democratic Senators also served much longer in office than did the Republican Senators.
The assertions made by the media are false.
The media has invented a fictional meme either to create controversy or heightened emotions or is trying to offer a crude explanation as to how a Republican could have won this race. This bad reporting looks like propaganda messaging.
The loser of this election was the media, for telling what is basically a lie. Except for NPR, whose reporting appears accurate and US News, which seems to have the issues sorted out. (FYI, I was in Bozeman days before this election.)
Not surprisingly, 2/3ds of Americans say they think the media publishes fake news. The first headline “In blood red Montana…” is a story written by a professor of political science, no less, which damages the reputation of academics as well. One would think there would be the slightest fact checking on such claims but the media leaves that up to bloggers.