Dana Bash’s “Both Sides” Moment Was Disgraceful

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit <a href="https://michaelfanone.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&#38;utm_campaign=CTA_7">michaelfanone.substack.com</a><br /><br /><p>A gunman opens fire at an event tied to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and within hours we’re right back in the same ditch the media always crawls into.</p><p>Dana Bash goes on TV and starts angling the conversation toward <strong>Democrats’ rhetoric</strong> — like the real story after an assassination attempt is whether the opposition party is being “too heated” when they describe authoritarian behavior.</p><p>That’s not journalism. That’s reflexive both-sidesing, and it’s poisonous.</p><p>Because it does two things at once:</p><p>It <strong>dodges accountability</strong> for the people actually feeding the climate of political violence, and it <strong>pressures the people warning about authoritarianism</strong> to shut up — so we can all pretend this is normal politics.</p><p><p>The Michael Fanone Show is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></p><p>Bash pressed Jamie Raskin with the classic framing: <em>is it fair to say Democratic rhetoric creates an environment for violence?</em> Translation: <em>should Democrats stop calling things what they are so we can lower the temperature?</em></p><p>Here’s the problem: calling an insurrection an insurrection isn’t “heated.” Saying democracy is under attack when politicians try to guarantee elections isn’t “heated.” Naming authoritarian tactics isn’t “incitement.” It’s the bare minimum of accountability.</p><p>You want to talk about rhetoric that drives danger? Look at the language that paints opponents as enemies, vermin, traitors — the stuff that turns politics into a moral justification for violence. That’s the pipeline. That’s the pattern. And the media keeps stepping around it like it’s a puddle they don’t want to get their shoes wet.</p><p>This “both sides” impulse doesn’t reduce violence. It <strong>normalizes it</strong>.</p><p>Because when you treat accurate warnings as equivalent to violent intimidation, you blur the line between <strong>criticism</strong> and <strong>threats</strong>. You make the public think the real problem is “tone,” not the people stoking rage and then acting surprised when somebody snaps.</p><p>I spent two decades in law enforcement. After an incident like this, you don’t start by interrogating the victim’s wording. You start with the shooter, the access, the failures, the motive, the networks, the signals — the real causes.</p><p>What Bash did is the media version of showing up to a crime scene and asking the person who got attacked what they did to provoke it.</p><p>That’s not neutral. That’s cowardice dressed up as professionalism.</p><p>And if legacy media wants any credibility left, they need to stop treating democratic accountability like it’s partisan “heat” and start calling the problem what it is — before the next attempt, the next attack, the next tragedy that everyone swears they “never saw coming.”</p><p>🟧 <strong>Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order</strong>🟧 <strong>Founding Members get 20% off for life</strong></p><p>You’ll get the link in your welcome email.</p><p><strong>GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!</strong></p>