In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, local TV, print, and online outlets in Arizona and Wisconsin have published inconsistent and incomplete information on Blake Masters’ and Ron Johnson’s extreme positions on abortion, giving ample cover to Republicans looking to backtrack on or downplay unpopular stances like near-total abortion bans and national restrictions.
The candidates’ softened approaches come as public polling has shown considerable disapproval for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and as Democratic candidates have vowed to make abortion protections central to their midterm platforms. Recent election results and polling indicate the threat to abortion rights has energized Democrats to turn out against Republicans, and GOP figures have tried to run damage control, changing or downplaying their stated positions.
However, in a pattern that mirrors national outlets' prior negligent coverage, local outlets in Arizona and Wisconsin have failed to adequately scrutinize this shift. Ohio’s recent abortion ban highlighted the important role local media can play in properly contextualizing the impact of policies. But local media can also fail in their responsibility to inform voters of candidates’ histories and explain how they would likely vote if elected.
Both Masters and Johnson have deflected from their own extreme and unpopular positions by painting their opponents as abortion extremists in attack ads and public comments. Johnson’s campaign and supporters have falsely claimed that opponent Mandela Barnes would support abortion up until the moment of birth, and Masters has attacked Mark Kelly with the same accusation. At the same time, Masters has tried to temper the reaction to his previous support for a federal “personhood” law by claiming he supports some exceptions through the 15th week of pregnancy, and Johnson has tried to distance himself from a national abortion ban despite repeated support.
Arizona local outlets have gone along with Blake Masters’ backtrack on abortion and whitewashed his past support for a “federal personhood” law and national ban
Masters took a hard-line position on abortion in his primary race and “repeatedly stated support for a federal ‘personhood’ law,” which is generally “viewed as a complete or nearly complete ban on abortion” from conception without exceptions. But after his primary win and as it became apparent the fall of Roe was energizing Democrats to turn out against Republicans, Masters scrubbed his website of references to his past support for extremist anti-abortion positions like a “personhood” law. He now claims to support only banning abortion after 15 weeks, in line with Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) 15-week national abortion ban proposal . Masters also removed absolutist language that he is “100% pro-life.”
These reversals gained Masters national scrutiny, however many local Arizona outlets have taken his new “softened” position at face value despite these recent contradictory positions, parroting Masters’ claim that Kelly is the “radical one” on abortion or omitting his previous extreme anti-abortion positions altogether.
- A candidate profile of Masters by Tucson’s ABC affiliate only briefly mentioned that Masters supports banning abortion after 15 weeks and took his claim that he now favors exceptions for the life of the mother at face value. The profile failed to mention or scrutinize his recent support for a “federal personhood law.” [KGUN9, 10/14/22]
- The Tucson Sentinel’s candidate profile of Masters took his backpedaling on abortion restrictions as sincere and said he “presented a more moderate view” during a debate with Kelly. The article quoted Masters saying he supports some exceptions “because I don’t believe in being extreme on this issue. Sen. Mark Kelly is the abortion radical.” [Tucson Sentinel, 10/15/22]
- The Arizona Republic’s write-up of the October 6 debate between Masters and Kelly downplayed Masters’ cynical flip-flop on abortion as Masters having “taken heat over his changing rhetoric on the issue,” but didn’t mention or elaborate on his past support for a federal “personhood” law or why he’s “taken heat.” Instead, the article parroted Masters’ claim that Kelly is the radical one on the issue. [Arizona Republic, 10/7/22]
- An Arizona Republic article on abortion being a top issue for women in Arizona referred to Masters’ prior support for abortion restrictions only in vague terms, making no mention of the federal “personhood” law, saying, “Masters has advocated for a range of federal and state restrictions, though recently trying to soften his tone.” The article acknowledged Masters previously calling abortion a “genocide happening in America” and scrubbing language from his website that he is “100% pro-life,” but also highlighted that Kelly and Masters are both ”pointing to the other as more extreme." [Arizona Republic, 10/19/22]
Wisconsin local outlets have largely oversimplified Ron Johnson’s position, taking his support for a state referendum at face value
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has a history of attempting to appeal to extremist voters while still appearing moderate on abortion, despite publicly maintaining that regulating abortion should be left for state legislatures. Crucial to this has been Johnson’s support for a public referendum on exceptions to Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban, which the GOP-led statehouse indicated wouldn’t happen.
Leading into the 2022 midterms, Johnson stated that the fall of Roe was a “victory for life” and not a “huge threat to women’s health” and later suggested that Wisconsonites who opposed the state’s existing ban could move to a different state. In strict defiance of his own states-rights position on abortion, Johnson co-sponsored proposed federal restrictions on abortion on six separate occasions.
Yet local outlets have largely ignored and oversimplified Johnson’s past positions on abortion, often leaving out his more extreme comments and the hypocrisy of his support for federal regulations in favor of focusing solely on his referendum idea.
- In post-debate coverage, a local CBS affiliate whitewashed Johnson’s past statements and positions, stating only that he supported legislation to “restrict abortion” without mentioning specifics. [CBS58, 10/7/22]
- A rundown of the major debate talking points from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel failed to mention Johnson’s hypocritical support of federal legislation, sanitizing his position by mentioning only his push for a popular referendum on the topic. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/7/22]
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel claimed that Johnson “pushed back” on Graham's proposed 15-week ban but failed to mention his repeated past support for the proposal. Instead the piece framed Johnson’s soft rebuke of Graham’s proposal within the context of Johnson’s supposed preference for a state referendum. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 09/15/22]
- The Daily Cardinal ignored Johnson’s past positions entirely, stating that “he promoted a statewide referendum that would determine when state governments could restrict abortions.” This analysis lacked any reference to Johnson’s repeated support for federal restrictions even before Roe fell. [The Daily Cardinal, 10/17/22]
- In an article dedicated solely to discussing public opinion on abortion during the midterms, Wisconsin Public Radio failed to make any mention of Johnson’s past statements or positions other than mentioning that Barnes has “held a series of ‘Ron Against Roe’ campaign rallies.” [Wisconsin Public Radio, 10/13/22]
- PBS Wisconsin was quick to take Johnson at face value by noting he says “individual states should use referendums to decide if abortion should be allowed.” The piece did not mention Johnson’s continued support for federal initiatives or the contradiction that poses for his stated position. [PBS Wisconsin, 9/29/22]
Some local outlets are providing crucial context
- Wisconsin Examiner outlined Johnson’s history on the issue, detailing his support for federal restrictions on abortion and calling out his hypocrisy by labeling him a “famous flip-flopper.” [Wisconsin Examiner, 9/14/22]
- Up North News, a Madison-based outlet, published an extensive profile of Johnson’s support for national bans. The piece also alluded to Johnson’s more extreme comments by mentioning that he “bragged about his role in overturning Roe.” [Up North News, 09/22/22]
- An Arizona Public Media write-up of Masters and Kelly portraying themselves as independents gave a much fuller picture of Masters’ past abortion positions than other pieces have, explaining that he scrubbed his website to try to appeal to independent voters and highlighting his recent support for a national ban and “federal personhood” law. Though the article gave a more in-depth look at how Masters might vote as a senator, it still bought into Masters’ framing that he has “in fact softened his previous hard-line stances on abortion.” [Arizona Public Media, 10/18/22]
- A Wisconsin Public Radio piece focusing on Johnson’s failed move for a state referendum mentioned multiple of his previous federal moves, specifically calling out the contradiction. Referencing his previous comments and legislative moves, the article makes it clear that Johnson holds a contradictory position that undermines his referendum-centric approach. [Wisconsin Public Radio, 9/1622]
- Phoenix’s NBC affiliate covered Masters’ claim that his position on abortion restrictions hadn’t changed with scrutiny. The article noted Masters’ past support for a federal “personhood law” and highlighted that “it was not until after the primary that Masters made it clear to 12News that the version of the law he supports would start in the third trimester.” [12News NBC, 8/26/22]