‘All Sorts of Excesses, Like the Worst, Most Brazen Lying’
The New York Times
Overall Assessment
The article presents a reflective, expert-driven analysis of election manipulation across time, anchored in a personal anecdote. It prioritizes expert voices and systemic critique over sensationalism, though tone occasionally leans into moral urgency. The framing emphasizes continuity of corruption rather than progress in accountability.
"We’re gonna beat those white mothers so bad no white person is gonna feel safe"
Fear Appeal
Headline & Lead 75/100
The headline uses a vivid, out-of-context quote that amplifies emotional resonance but slightly misrepresents the article’s measured analysis, though the lead paragraph fairly sets up the historical and modern comparison of election manipulation.
✕ Headline / Body Mismatch: The headline quotes a dramatic phrase from within the article ('All sorts of excesses, like the worst, most brazen lying') without clarifying its source or context, making it appear as a general indictment rather than a specific quote from Bob Bauer. This overemphasizes emotional impact over accuracy.
"‘All sorts of excesses, like the worst, most brazen lying’"
Language & Tone 80/100
Tone remains largely analytical and reflective, but occasional use of emotionally charged language—often in quotes or sourced commentary—introduces mild bias without undermining overall objectivity.
✕ Loaded Language: The article uses charged terms like 'grotesque tactics' and 'brazen lying' which carry strong moral judgment, though they are attributed to sources or used reflectively rather than editorially.
"the grotesque tactics employed in Baltimore in 1967"
✕ Fear Appeal: Phrases like 'beat those white mothers so bad no white person is gonna feel safe' are quoted directly from a historical anecdote but are presented without sufficient distancing, potentially amplifying fear rather than analyzing the tactic.
"We’re gonna beat those white mothers so bad no white person is gonna feel safe"
✕ Loaded Adjectives: Describing past tactics as 'vicious' and 'brazen' injects moral judgment into what is otherwise an analytical piece, though these are often in service of quoting sources.
"a vicious struggle for political power"
Balance 90/100
Strong sourcing with diverse, named experts and clear attribution; no reliance on anonymous or unverified sources.
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: The article cites multiple experts across disciplines—law, political science, economics—including Pildes, Bauer, Pozen, Dincer, and Fenster, representing a range of academic institutions and perspectives.
✓ Proper Attribution: Nearly all claims are clearly attributed to named experts or sources, with emails cited directly, enhancing credibility and transparency.
"Richard Pildes, a law professor at N.Y.U., wrote by email"
✓ Viewpoint Diversity: The article includes voices with complementary but distinct analyses (Pildes on dark money, Bauer on polarization, Pozen on misinformation, Fenster on epistemic visibility), creating a multidimensional perspective.
Story Angle 85/100
The story is framed as a historical comparison of election integrity, which is valid and informative, though slightly weighted toward concern over resilience.
✕ Narrative Framing: The article frames the story as a comparison between past and present election manipulation, using the 1967 anecdote as a narrative anchor. This is legitimate but risks oversimplifying complex systemic changes.
"Is this better or worse than the grotesque tactics employed in Baltimore in 1967?"
✕ Framing by Emphasis: The piece emphasizes continuity in political deception rather than change, focusing on escalating risks rather than countermeasures like media literacy or regulation.
"we are probably at the lowest point since at least the 1960s"
Completeness 90/100
Rich in historical and systemic context, though slightly underrepresents counterforces to political distortion.
✓ Contextualisation: The article provides extensive historical context, from 1967 Baltimore to Citizens United, and connects technological, legal, and social changes to current challenges in election integrity.
"Since 2010, Pildes argued, there’s been a dramatic increase in the role of outside groups funded by nondisclosed money — 'dark money.'"
✕ Omission: The article omits discussion of successful regulatory or civic responses to misinformation (e.g., fact-checking initiatives, platform policies), which could provide balance to the narrative of decline.
Dark money portrayed as fundamentally corrupting the political system
The article frames dark money as a central mechanism undermining electoral integrity. Richard Pildes and David Pozen both describe the collapse of disclosure norms and the rise of undisclosed funding through 501(c)(4)s and shell companies as a systemic corruption.
"there’s been a dramatic increase in the role of outside groups funded by nondisclosed money — 'dark money.'"
Elections portrayed as under serious threat from manipulation and corruption
The article emphasizes the vulnerability of elections to modern tactics like dark money, AI-generated misinformation, and influencer payoffs, framing them as increasingly compromised. The deep analysis notes heightened concerns about secrecy and falsity, and quotes experts describing current conditions as 'as bad as any.'
"we are probably at the lowest point since at least the 1960s in terms of the role that less transparent efforts to influence public opinion are playing."
Influencers portrayed as corrupting public trust by disguising paid endorsements as authentic opinion
The article critiques political influencers as exploiting built trust for covert campaigning. Oguzhan Dincer describes this as 'borrowing trust,' and the Carlos Espina case is presented as emblematic of undisclosed financial arrangements undermining transparency.
"The $100,000 fee, buried in campaign finance records, Bensinger wrote, 'is described as a payment for ‘strategic advice and campaign surrogacy.’'"
AI portrayed as a tool for deception and election manipulation
AI is discussed not as a neutral or progressive technology but specifically as a weapon in political deception. Bob Bauer warns of a 'race to the bottom' in the competitive use of AI for deception, and the article notes its role in generating false content at scale.
"We should expect a race to the bottom in the competitive use of A.I. and other sophisticated techniques of deception."
The public is framed as excluded from truthful political discourse and manipulated through epistemic silos
The article repeatedly emphasizes the public's diminished ability to access shared facts due to media fragmentation and disinformation. Richard Pildes notes the collapse of trusted sources, and Mark Fenster observes that voters live in 'epistemic silos,' undermining democratic participation.
"The collapse of trusted sources of widely shared knowledge about facts, candidates and campaigns means that these dark-money efforts to propagate misleading information can be more effective."
The article presents a reflective, expert-driven analysis of election manipulation across time, anchored in a personal anecdote. It prioritizes expert voices and systemic critique over sensationalism, though tone occasionally leans into moral urgency. The framing emphasizes continuity of corruption rather than progress in accountability.
This article examines historical and modern election manipulation tactics, using a 1967 Baltimore case as a starting point. It draws on expert analysis to compare the roles of disinformation, dark money, and media fragmentation. The piece evaluates whether today’s electoral environment is more vulnerable to manipulation than in the past.
The New York Times — Politics - Other
Based on the last 60 days of articles
The New York Times
No related content