Partisan Selective Exposure is the Real Deal

Neal McCluskey, part of the Cato Institute, wrote an argumentative article on the controversial matter of Common Core in the United States. Key word: argumentative. In his article "Common Core Treats Students Like Soulless Widgets", there were many instances of language that I would consider partisan. It all starts with the title: he starts off by accusing Common Core of seriously demeaning students, so much that they are "soulless widgets". That type of language right off the bat reveals that this man has clearly taken a side, and that side is the side of libertarianism that not only himself but his entire organization endorses. He also uses the somewhat disrespectful term "feds" often which reveals his aggression towards controlling government officials and strong support for limited government that libertarians like himself and the Cato Institution believe in. He also had some choice words for the National Governors Association, one of the government institutions behind Common Core. He described the NGA as "powerless", a claim that once again ties to the political ideologies of himself and his institution. These and many other instances in his article of language that would be classified as partisan. On the other hand - and the exact opposite end of the spectrum of opinions on Common Core - is Carmel Martin who is the Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress. The organization she is part of is against conservative beliefs in many ways, making them a somewhat liberal organization, unlike the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute - and Martin is no exception to this as her testimony reveals her liberal values. Her frequent mentions of government organizations that she used to support her claims reveal her ties to the liberals, for liberals are the ones all about the government - they consider the government to be essential and endorse a larger, more controlling government in order to maintain peace and equality within the nation and among all nations. Also, her large discussion of teachers' endorsements of Common Core and mention of a poll that yielded results that indicated widespread support for Common Core. This also ties to the liberal beliefs of herself and the CAP organization she represents in that liberals care about teachers a great deal and fight for them in regards to their salaries, so it only makes sense that she would focus on teachers' opinions. She also frequently mentioned New York as being a state that she considered to be educationally elite compared to other states, and she also made sure to point out that New York teachers supported the implementation of Common Core. This connects to her liberal beliefs that her and CAP hold in common because New York is one of the top ten liberal states in the United States according to a Gallup poll (to see other statistics from this poll, use this link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152459/mississippi-conservative-state-liberal.aspx) and it would only be logical for her to compliment a liberal state and try and subtly convince others to aspire to be like this state - perhaps on more than just an educational level. A presentation by Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley can be compared to Carmel Martin's testimony in many of the things he says that can also be considered partisan in that he shows subtle yet certain ties to the liberal party. For example, similar to Martin, he complimented California Math Standards which, according to the Gallup poll afore mentioned, also makes the list of top ten liberal states in the U.S. which means Wu, like Martin with New York, is trying to persuade other states to adopt a liberal state's educational standards and perhaps more. Also, Wu brought up the matter of the government needing to increase funding for education - specifically in mathematics - in order to advance, which is a belief held common by many liberal. This is similar to how Martin brought up the teacher support in her testimony, for they both tied their statements supporting Common Core to commonly held liberal beliefs on education. Another testimony supporting the implementation of Common Core that is comparable to Carmel Martin's is the statement from James B. Hunt, Jr., the Chairman of the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy and former governor of North Carolina. The word that jumped out of this testimony as being considered partisan is the word "governor". This man was the former governor of North Carolina of the United States; an inference can be made that this man, having partaken in the government and thus has an obvious passion for politics and government, that he would perhaps side with liberals that support larger and more controlling governments since he has had a taste of the power first-hand. Lastly, the testimony coming from the National Association of State Boards of Education concurs with that of Carmel Martin and it also has a clear instance of language that could be classified as partisan. NASBE says that they stand behind their endorsement of Common Core because they want high quality education for all students. Key word: all. This ties to the liberal beliefs this organization allegedly hold in that liberals are all about equality and equal opportunites for ALL. There are many other places where partisan selective exposure is present on the matter of Common Core. For example, on the Media Matters for America website, a blogger attacked Fox News for supporting a North Carolina mother for trying to fight Common Core. The blogger used some choice words to express her siding with the informed conservatives rather than the apparently uninformed liberals by pointing out that Common Core "does not mandate how those standards should be reached". Though it is somewhat unique for the blogger, most likely a conservative, to be for Common Core, the blogger still discussed the freedom that schools maintain regardless of the standards set. Commentary Magazine also looks at the conservative side of this debate through an article by Seth Mandel where his speech clearly labeled him as a liberal. He attacked the liberals by using words like "ranting" and "weak" to describe how they tried to fight conservatives' claims that Common Core was just another attempt by the Obama administration to control the people and the state, revealing that he definitely has strong conservative beliefs that largely carry over into his writing. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, though it seemed fairly neutral, did seem to perhaps lean more towards the conservative side of things with its hinting that teachers' freedom in the classroom playing a significant role in this controversy. The article from this institute mentioned teachers as being an integral part of education and that they should be allowed to develop and improve materials part of their teaching of their classes and that this is what enhances "ownership" of Common Core. Conservatives are all about freedom to the people and private ownership which this journalist also concluded to be important. Similar to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the article from The New York Times seemed almost completely neutral and nonpartisan because the author of the article gave an account of one side of the spectrum's opinions without taking a side himself. The only thing even remotely partisan is that the author, for whatever reason, chose to focus on the more conservative side of the controversy that has been joined by the predominantly liberal state of New York. There is a chance that the author chose this side because he himself is a conservative and he believes what those he wrote about believed. That however cannot be assumed since the article did not make it clear. The article from the Education Week website contained some speech that marked it as partisan in the way the writer made sure to mention the big problems and political opposition that the Common Core new standards have been encountering. This implies that the writer is perhaps a conservative since that is the group that seems to oppose Common Core and the writer focused on the fact that there are big problems to try and scare readers away from supporting a cause that encounters much opposition. The opinionated page of the US News webpage's article on Common Core presents clear uses of partisan language that indicates the author as having liberal beliefs. For example, when the writer mentioned how Common Core can help in the mending of the U.S.'s public school system, that revealed the person's affiliation with the liberal party in that the liberals strongly support the public school system as did this person. The Politico webpage also had an article on Common Core that included the use of language that could be considered partisan in the way it tied the author to the conservative party. The author mentioned that the source of the outrage in the public is a result of distrust for government officials, indicating that the author may be find the government to be a nuisance that leads to outrage and wish for a less controlling government to prevent this. The article from the National Jorunal definitely included some partisan word choice that labeled the author as a liberal. The author deemed the conservatives to be sources of "suspicion". She goes on to say that liberals must find more support for their arguments. This all implies that she finds the conservatives to be somewhat misinformed due to their "wildly hypothetical" proclamations against Common Core while she is urging on the liberals. The Washington Post has an article of its own on this subject matter that includes partisan language - actually only one word in particular - as well that may have labeled its author as a liberal. The use of the word "outdated" to describe the law requiring annual standardized tests in public schools is the one word that tied the author to the liberal party because that implies that the writer is looking for an updated law to change with the times and advance education which is the issue Common Core tries to tackle - and Common Core is endorsed by liberals. The Huffington Post's Black Voices page contained an article that contained clear examples of partisan word choice siding the author with the liberals. For example, the author mentioned that he supported Common Core's implementation because it would "level the playing field" and provide all U.S. citizens with an equal opportunity to receive the education they need to make it in the modern world. This falls under one of the liberals' main beliefs: equality among all citizens and equal opportunities. As seen in a plethora of articles, partisan selective exposure is a concept that largely exists in modern day political journalism.