This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As a person who likes words more than numbers, I often am skeptical when statistics are used to tell a story.

Because you can make statistics say anything you want.

So, I was uneasy when I came across a story this week by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank contending there is proof – statistical proof –that the media treats President Joseph Biden “as badly – or worse than” – Donald Trump.

Wouldn’t you know it.  James Freeman, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, took on Milbank this morning for relying so heavily on statistics that are very tough to measure – rating media coverage on “sentiments” (see below).

Still, Freeman grudgingly gives Milbank a passing grade because his piece was labeled “opinion.”

The proof Milbank offered came from a data information company called FiscalNote. 

The company, Milbank wrote, combed through more than 200,000 articles — tens of millions of words — from 65 news websites (newspapers, network and cable news, political publications, news wires and more) to do a “sentiment analysis” of coverage.

“Using algorithms that give weight to certain adjectives based on their placement in the story, it rated the coverage Biden received in the first 11 months of 2021 and the coverage Trump got in the first 11 months of 2020.”

It was worse for Biden.

To wit, Milbank contends, his worst fear is being acknowledged.  “My colleagues in the media are serving as accessories to the murder of democracy.”

Milbank continues:  “After a honeymoon of slightly positive coverage in the first three months of the year, Biden’s press for the past four months has been as bad as — and for a time worse than — the coverage Trump received for the same four months of 2020.

“Think about that.  In 2020, Trump presided over a worst-in-world pandemic response that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths; held a super-spreader event at the White House, and got covid–19 himself; praised QAnon adherents; embraced violent white supremacists; waged a racist campaign against Black Lives Matter demonstrators; attempted to discredit mail-in voting; and refused to accept his defeat in a free and fair election, leading eventually to the violence of January 6, and causing tens of millions to accept the ‘big lie.’ the worst of more than 30,000 he told in office.”

Point made, though the aforementioned Freeman probably wouldn’t agree that any solid point was made.

For me, Trump ranks clearly as the worst president in U.S. history.  He held office to aggrandize himself at the expense of Americans.  And, then, when he lost to Biden, he did not concede.

And still hasn’t.

Yet, chances are that he will run for president again in 2024.  And, no doubt some right-wing publications will try to help him get what he wants.

As a former newspaper reporter, I have mixed emotions about Milbank’s column.  I always have been taught that journalists should be fair and impartial as they reported “news,” not intentionally favoring one side or the other.

Opinion columns can do that – and, to be sure, Milbank is an opinion columnist for the Post, so, under that banner, he has every right to express his point-of-view if the Post will publish it.

Milbank says “we need a skeptical, independent press.”  But, then, on other hand, he adds this question:  “How about being partisans for democracy?”

“The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative.  And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians.

“Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction.  It’s time to take a stand.”

In response to Milbank, I’ll let my bias show.  If that means being more and more critical of Trump, good.  He is a liar and an authoritarian who was – and would be – terrible for this country.

If it also means favoring democracy, also good, given that the future of our form of government is at stake – and an authoritarian form with a dictator would be far worse.

So, I’ll let Milbank’s posits settle for a little longer.  What he wrote is thought-provoking – and, that, too, is one function of a free press.