By Zarak Khan, Staff Editor
Since the Supreme Court's controversial "Citizen's United" decision, the ruling's importance has been characterized many ways in the news. Recently the New York Times focused on the expanded influence afforded to unions under the new ruling. At the same time The New Yorker profiled Art Pope, who, under the new ruling, has used his wealth to influence local elections around North Carolina.
What do such contrasting representations of influence tell us about the role of the media in interpreting legal decisions for mass consumption? Is this simply journalism at work, following the story of campaign influence where it leads? Or do these stories represent a bias toward false equivalencies that is more fundamental to the modern media environment?