Danger in viewing only partisan media

There was a big kerfuffle, it seems, recently, when Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin questioned Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee for a federal judgeship in the Seventh Circuit.

If the sources I read were to be believed, the senators all but asked Barrett “Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic.” Reports were so over the top that I thought it might help to view the video myself.

That proved to be wise because what actually transpired is far different from what was widely reported. There was no attack on Barrett’s religion. None.

As background, Ms. Barrett is a former clerk of Justice Scalia. In her writings and in some of her speeches, she has given the impression that she finds substantial conflict between the role of a judge and one’s Catholic faith.

There are two particular issues at question: the death penalty and abortion. The Catholic Church opposes both, though, depending, it seems on their political affiliation, some leaders of the church seem to place more emphasis on one than the other. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church can take any position it wants on any matter of faith.

A judge however, is bound by law and precedent. A judge must apply both in all of her rulings, without exception. And only in rare cases may judges recuse themselves.

Barrett’s writings and speeches seem to indicate that a judge should step out of cases where the application of law and Supreme Court precedent would conflict with church doctrine. If so, this would make her unqualified for the bench.

To her credit, Barrett gave the right answers to the senators’ questions. Of course, she would apply the law as the constitution requires. She couldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade because she would not be in a position to do so as a member of the Seventh Circuit. If an abortion or death penalty case came before her, she would apply the appropriate law and adhere to Supreme Court precedent.

Whether one believes the nominee is an open question. She said what she needed to and will probably be confirmed to the bench.

What concerns me more is whether we can believe the media. To read the coverage a few weeks ago, one would think they’d grilled her under hot lights about every tenet of her faith. Some questioned whether the senators had violated the constitution themselves, applying a religious test to the office to which she was nominated.

The fact remains, the questions they had asked were quite reasonable and had been raised by the nominee’s own writings and speeches. Durbin himself is Catholic (some of the media questioned Feinstein more, highlighting her Judaism) and neither senator attacked her faith.

Often, my suggestion is to make sure your media diet is complete with a wide variety of sources, left, right, and otherwise. In this situation, the issue blew up in the right wing media. Few left or mainstream sources had been paying much attention to the hearings. When they did, it was only as a reaction to the original hyperbolic claims, either clarifying or arguing in opposition.

But is it even realistic to ask people to consult a wide variety of media sources — on every issue? Probably not. After all, we have jobs, families, lives, etc.

So, what is one to do? Reading with skepticism would be a start, especially when you know the source is partisan. Our own biases being what they are, that is even more important when the partisan source is one you tend to agree with.

One question to ask is whether the language, which in partisan sources, tends to be over the top, is justified, based on actual verifiable facts. Don’t just look at the headlines, which are geared to get you to click on the article. Examine the facts. Look at the quotes and statements, not just the overstated interpretation of them. Often, something they want you to think is outrageous turns out to be just mildly disagreeable, or even wholly reasonable.

It’s a partisan media world these days. Proceed with skepticism.