Accuracy in Media

An organization that campaigns on “exposing partisan obstruction to progressive policies” is not in itself “non-partisan,” as it claims.

It is campaigning in favor of progressive policies, or at least against those against them. While that is the right of the organization and those within it, it’s not non-partisan. It’s partisan in favor of progressive policies.  

Yet the organization, Accountable.US, describes itself in a letter to Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and James Comer (R-Ky.): “I write to you on behalf of non-partisan government watchdog Accountable.US”

The background here is that former President Donald Trump’s new media company is merging with a special acquisition company (SPAC) onto the stock market. One of the founders and financiers of that SPAC is Brazilian. Accordingly, Accountable.US claims – although, of course, it states that they “have concerns” and “would like questions answered” – that there is some sort of link between the stock market merger and the Brazilian government of Jair Bolsonaro. Further, that in Trump’s last weeks in office, he altered U.S. government policy toward Brazil to reward those who had set up the SPAC.

The claims rather fail on a number of grounds. SPACs were last year’s exciting flavor on the stock market, hundreds were set up by all sorts of people. No U.S. government action was required to do so, nor would thank you presents be necessary. Trump’s media ambitions would find a SPAC without it having to be Brazilian or government-backed as well. 

These “concerns” are being raised by partisan activists just because it’s possible to string a few links together.

This is the importance of the use of non-partisan as a description. We reserve it for those who actually are. They might have any particular issue they’re interested in and this might align or not with traditional political divides.

But they are concerned with the issue, not with scoring either party or partisan political points. This clearly isn’t true of this organization, therefore, they shouldn’t be using the description — nor should we allow them to do so. For if that phrase and description gets colonized by those clearly partisan then it loses its meaning and value. 

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.