Home > Congress, Media & News > When Coverage Went Nuclear

When Coverage Went Nuclear

Remember that thing with filibusters that happened a little while ago? What was it again?

Oh yeah… the Senate went

Mushroom Cloud


That is to say, the Senate used a contentious rules interpretation (“the nuclear option”) to decrease the number of votes needed to overcome some forms of obstruction.

I’m quaking in fear! Aren’t you? Nuclear! Doomsday! Zombie Ayn Rand!

Almost two months later, Democrats don’t have unbridled power, Republicans have ceased planning apocalyptic retribution, and Obama still has trouble getting his appointees confirmed. I think the media crapnado surrounding this event may have been a little overblown. It’s not like Senate rules have never changed before, and the current definition/use of “filibuster” hasn’t been around that long. They didn’t even get rid of all the types of filibustering that force cloture votes: just a few of the most jerksome. Mitch McConnell threatened that Republicans will get rid of even more obstructionist measures once they are in the majority (gasp!), and I for one can’t wait. I think these charts sum it up nicely:

Falling number of Senate bills passedObstructionism on the rise

I know that the Senate is supposed to slow down the legislative process, but dear god. Time for less filibustering! The Senate is not getting things done, and being forced to vote on cloture every time Harry Reid wants to wipe his nose is not helping.

But I digress. What I wanted to share was a cool comparison of how different media outlets covered this event. I happened to snap a few screenshots of the main webpages for different news organizations the day this change went through. I think the headlines say a lot about each media source:

BloombergCBS News CNN Fox News HuffPo LA Times MSNBC NBC NYT Politico Reuters Time Washington Post WSJ

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.