The Morning Briefing: Elissa Slotkin Is a Classic Study in Dem Doublespeak
The column criticizes Slotkin’s video about illegal orders and her later remarks in an ABC interview.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYPJ Media is an opinion-oriented outlet, and this column is openly argumentative rather than a work of independent, balanced reporting. The author is named, but the piece relies partly on other reporting and offers limited sourcing for its broader claims.
- Source type — Opinion publication; the article is explicitly a partisan column.
- Editorial standards — The text is openly argumentative and provides limited evidence for broad claims about Democrats.
- Author attribution — The column names its author.
- Transparency — Some claims are attributed to other reporting, but the excerpt does not establish a corrections practice.
The column identifies Slotkin’s video and interview remarks but presents them through a sharply partisan lens, with little competing context or independent sourcing in the text. Several broad claims about Democrats are asserted rather than supported.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The column offers a sustained critique of Slotkin and Democrats without presenting their rationale for the video or meaningful responses to the author’s claims. Its language and selection of examples are strongly one-sided.
- Counterarguments presented — The article does not explain the lawmakers’ rationale for urging refusal of illegal orders.
- Loaded language — Repeatedly uses pejorative and mocking language about Democrats and Slotkin.
- Source diversity — Relies on the author’s perspective and references to other commentary, with no opposing source represented.
- Opinion vs reporting — The piece is an opinion column and makes its verdict on Slotkin explicit.
The author uses strongly derisive language about Democrats and frames Slotkin’s statements as evidence of dishonesty and ideological extremism. The column’s defense of Trump and its conservative framing are explicit.
- Language tone — Uses insults and dismissive descriptions such as “Keystone Cops,” “unhinged,” and “whacked-out.”
- Framing — Presents Slotkin’s remarks as proof of Democratic dishonesty and leftward drift.
- Headline — The headline labels Slotkin a study in “Dem Doublespeak.”
The column criticizes Sen. Elissa Slotkin for joining a video urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders, then saying she was unaware of any such orders from the Trump administration. It presents her comments as an example of Democratic inconsistency.
The column says Slotkin joined Democratic lawmakers in a video urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse “illegal orders” from the Trump administration. It reports that she later told ABC’s Martha Raddatz she was “not aware” of any illegal orders from the administration. The author argues that these remarks show inconsistency and criticizes Slotkin’s political positioning.
The column also recounts that President Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said their actions were punishable by death. It contrasts Slotkin’s past decision not to vote on a bill concerning transgender athletes with what the author describes as her recent move to the left.
Community verdict
24 VOTESCounts every outlet’s report of this story. See all 7
Votes cast on this page
Votes cast on this page: ▲ 0 · ◆ 0 · ▼ 0
People in this story
SWIPE →Michigan senator criticized for joining the video and discussing it in an interview
President whose administration was discussed and who accused the lawmakers of sedition
Former president referenced in the phrase “post-Biden Dems”
Part of a bigger story
6 OUTLETS- ARTICLES
- 7
- OUTLETS
- 6
- AVG CRED
- 54
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…


