This is the infuriating announcement that I heard on my local NPR radio channel this morning (I later looked up the exact script online, it's easy to find): "The first debate was chaos. The second one was canceled. Now, former Vice President Biden and President Trump face off one last time in Nashville."
Really? The first debate just happened to be chaos? How odd that the person who turned that debate into chaos (performed the action) by interrupting others more than a hundred times isn't even mentioned. An accurate reporting of what actually happened at that first debate would be more like this: The first debate was turned into a chaotic spectacle by Pr*sident Trump’s complete lack of decorum and his insistence on interrupting and speaking over both the moderator and VP Biden more than a hundred times. Those are the facts. That version of the events isn’t even slightly embellished; if anything, even that presentation might be too generous towards the pr*sident. It doesn’t even mention the possibility that he was out of his mind on steroids and very likely infected with the novel corona-virus.
And the second debate: it wasn’t just mysteriously canceled. That statement is flat-out misrepresentation on the part of NPR. The debate commission scheduled a virtual debate to accommodate the infectious pr*sident, and trump essentially canceled that debate by refusing to show up in that remote modality. So why not point out who was actually responsible? Yes, the debate commission eventually had to announce an official cancelation, but they were not the ones responsible for that decision. They were simply accepting the reality of the situation created entirely by trump.
So why is NPR doing this? Why employ this passive voice construction to leave out the person actually performing the actions under discussion? Is it due to their insane devotion to “both-sides”? Is it because trump has successfully bullied them and they’re scared of what the paper tiger will rant about on his next rage-twitter fest? Whatever the reason, NPR’s reporting in this case does not just represent an absence of relevant facts, it is in fact a gross distortion of what actually happened. And it’s frightening to think of how much that sort of “reporting” actually benefits that fascist-in-chief.