The Politico article titled “The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway,” written by Kyle Cheney, Heidi Przybyla, John Sakellariadis, and Lisa Kashinsky, exemplifies junk journalism—a form of reporting that lacks balance, context, and rigor. Upon closer analysis, the piece reveals significant bias and fails to meet the ethical standards set by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, making it more of a speculative, fear-mongering narrative than a comprehensive news report.
Lack of Fairness and Balance
One of the core tenets of ethical journalism, as outlined by the SPJ Code of Ethics, is to “seek truth and report it” while ensuring fairness and balance. The Politico story, however, does neither. It paints a vivid picture of Donald Trump’s alleged plans to subvert the 2024 election results if he loses, but it does so by focusing exclusively on Trump’s potential actions without providing any historical context regarding how both parties have contested elections.
Politico Source says Dems will Create Civil War Conditions if Trump Wins
In addition to the omissions and speculative nature of Politico’s story, it also overlooks an important and highly relevant statement made by Rep. Jamie Raskin. In a video that circulated earlier, Raskin suggested that Congress might refuse to certify the 2024 election results if Trump were to win. This statement raises serious concerns about a potential double standard, given that Raskin played a prominent role in condemning Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 results. The Politico article, while quoting Raskin in the context of Trump’s potential actions, fails to address this critical comment about Congress potentially blocking certification if the election does not go in the Democrats’ favor. Ignoring this statement further contributes to the one-sided narrative of the article, leaving out any discussion about how such actions could undermine public trust in the electoral process from both sides.
spj-code-of-ethics-NANOSFor example, the piece neglects to mention how Democrats challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, leading to the famous Bush v. Gore case, or how some Democrats questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 victory due to allegations of Russian interference. By omitting these examples, the article fails to provide the reader with the full scope of how both political parties have handled contested elections. This creates a one-sided narrative that fits neatly into the fear-driven approach that has come to define junk journalism.
Speculative Scare Tactics
The article is filled with speculative scenarios and hypothetical outcomes about what Trump might do if he loses, but these predictions lack concrete evidence. For instance, the story outlines how Trump could potentially exploit legal loopholes, rely on alternate electors, and pressure GOP-led legislatures to challenge the Electoral College vote. However, this level of speculation, without solid evidence of Trump’s current intentions, veers dangerously into scare tactics—a hallmark of junk journalism.
Moreover, by relying on phrases like “Trump and his allies are already laying the groundwork” without providing substantial proof, Politico engages in a form of reporting that seems designed to stoke fear and anxiety rather than provide readers with informed, balanced insights into the 2024 election.
Ignoring the Role of Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Bias
A glaring omission from the article is the failure to acknowledge the role of prosecutorial discretion and judicial bias in election-related legal challenges. Prosecutors, particularly in Democratic-controlled states, have significant power to decide whether to pursue claims of voter fraud. In many instances, cases are not pursued due to a lack of sufficient evidence, political motivations, or resource allocation priorities.
Critics often argue that prosecutors in “blue states” are less likely to investigate fraud claims that could hurt their party, which adds complexity to the issue of election integrity. Courts, too, have been accused of dismissing claims of voter fraud on procedural grounds, rather than investigating the merit of the cases. These legal and procedural hurdles make it difficult to prove voter fraud after the fact, a point that the Politico article completely ignores.
In high-profile cases, such as the ICE investigation in North Carolina, where 19 foreign nationals were charged with voter fraud during the 2016 elections, prosecutorial discretion plays a crucial role. However, by failing to mention how prosecutorial discretion and judicial bias influence these cases, Politico misses an important aspect of the discussion, further diminishing the credibility of the article【27†source】.
Media Complicity in Pushing One-Sided Narratives
The media’s role in perpetuating biased narratives also cannot be ignored. Junk journalism often relies on selective reporting, which can skew public perception. In this case, Politico appears to align itself with a broader media trend that portrays Trump and his supporters as uniquely dangerous to democracy while downplaying or ignoring similar challenges posed by the Democratic Party in past elections.
For example, databases maintained by organizations such as The Heritage Foundation document cases of voter fraud across the country, highlighting that while voter fraud is rare, it does occur. However, mainstream outlets often avoid covering these cases in-depth, choosing instead to debunk conspiracy theories without giving due attention to legitimate concerns about election integrity【21†source】.
The Politico article follows this pattern by focusing on Trump’s alleged attempts to undermine democracy while ignoring broader concerns about how difficult it is to prove voter fraud, particularly when courts and media are not cooperative. This selective reporting creates a distorted picture of the issue and feeds into a partisan narrative that undermines public trust in journalism.
The Challenges of Proving Voter Fraud
One of the most critical aspects of voter fraud investigations is the inherent difficulty in proving fraud after an election is certified. Once ballots are anonymized, tracing specific votes becomes nearly impossible, a feature of voter privacy laws designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process. This makes it difficult to investigate and prosecute voter fraud, even when there is reason to believe it occurred.
Moreover, in states with Democratic leadership, critics argue that election boards and local officials are less likely to cooperate with investigations into voter fraud, creating additional barriers to proving fraud. The Politico article fails to address these challenges, focusing instead on speculative scenarios about Trump’s future actions while ignoring the very real difficulties that exist in investigating election fraud in the current legal and political environment【31†source】【30†source】.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for Responsible Journalism
The Politico article “The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway” is a textbook example of junk journalism. It relies heavily on speculative scare tactics, presents a one-sided narrative, and fails to address the broader legal and political complexities surrounding election integrity and voter fraud investigations. By ignoring key issues such as prosecutorial discretion, judicial bias, and media complicity, the article does a disservice to its readers and violates the ethical principles of balanced, fair journalism as outlined by the SPJ Code of Ethics.
Journalists have a responsibility to provide context, offer balanced perspectives, and avoid oversimplifying complex issues. Unfortunately, Politico falls short of these standards in this piece, choosing instead to stoke fear and feed into partisan narratives. For readers seeking reliable, unbiased reporting, this article is a prime example of why it’s essential to question the motives and methods behind the stories we consume.
If the goal is to safeguard democracy, journalism must do better than this. By addressing the broader issues that Politico ignored, future reporting on election integrity can provide a more comprehensive view of the challenges involved and move away from the sensationalism that characterizes junk journalism.