Henry | 1

Olivia Henry

Ms. Whitney

Ap Language

March 6, 2020

You Bring Your Biases, Jason Riley Reinforces Them

Jason Riley is not a “feel-good” columnist. You can’t open his articles and expect to find

a story about baby animals or heros running into burning buildings. You can’t expect to walk

away with a change of heart or a smile on your face. Instead, Jason Riley writes about politics.

He doesn’t do “human issues.” Riley, the outspoken, incendiary journalist for the ​Wall Street

Journal,​ doesn’t write to make his audience feel good, he writes to make them fearful and he

writes to make them angry. He speaks directly to upper class, white Americans who share his

political ideas of a traditional, nationalistic America, tapping into and justifying their implicit

biases. His columns deal with hot-button and controversial political issues, from elections to race

to immigration, and they always leave his audience with someone to hate and someone to blame.

Riley writes to appeal directly to his readers’ fears and their biases through his use of one sided

arguments, provocative language, and broad claims he hardly ever manages to support.

Riley has a clear agenda when he writes his columns. He wants to spark fury. Whether it

be towards immigrants or black people, prisoners, or democratic candidates, he wants his readers

to feel anger towards a particular group whom they believe go against their values. This isn’t

hard for him to do. His readers already have a bias against the political left and minorities,

meaning all he has to do is reinforce them. To do this, he makes broad generalizations and uses

cherry picked anecdotes, neglecting to include anything that may go against his ideas. Riley
 Henry | 2

doesn’t write for you to see the whole picture, his conservative ideologies and biases are clear.

Take, “Empty Prisons Mean Dangerous Streets” (February 4, 2020). Riley doesn’t talk about

people being unjustly held because they cannot post bail. Instead, to illustrate his point that all

offenders are inherently dangerous, he chooses only to talk about instances of brutal stabbing

sprees or terrorist attacks. He talks about Usman Khan who murdered two people in a terrorist

attack after only serving half of a previous 16 year sentence, and a long island man who killed

someone in a drunk driving crash after being released from prison twice (“Empty Prisons Mean

Dangerous Streets”). These examples confirm to the reader what they already believe; offenders

are a threat. His readers don’t want their minds changed. They’ve always believed these people

are dangerous and now they have the proof they need, all conveniently wrapped up in one article.

Riley uses fear-mongering in his writing, wanting his readers to feel afraid that these attacks

could happen to them, so that they stay set in their beliefs. His agenda is always crystal clear:

identify a target he knows his audience is against, then give them justification for their hatred

and attack.

Along with his examples, Riley uses language to instill hatred and fear in his readers’

minds. Riley’s language is provocative, defensive, and incendiary, leaving each reader to walk

away from the article with anger towards the week’s chosen target. He speaks in black and white,

in “us” vs. “them,” and in a pointed and targeted way (calling offenders “dangerous people,”

immigrants “illegal aliens,” and liberals “the ‘resistance’ left”). Riley doesn’t shy away from

attacking and demonizing the other side. He claims that the left “has become so unreasonable”

and that black democratic candidates ran “belligerent campaigns.” He calls the opposition

“class- warfare liberals” and asserts that they “lay a guilt trip” on white people. Riley
 Henry | 3

consistently uses the word “they” in order to isolate himself and his readers from those with

whom they disagree, making it clear who the good people are and who the bad people are. It’s

not a column that will leave readers feeling a sense of unity in the world or wanting to sing

“kumbaya” that’s for sure. Instead, it furthers the divide between Riley’s readers, those who are

wealthy, conservative, and traditional, and “everyone else.”

Riley’s main issue of choice is race. It is woven through every article he writes whether it

is the focal point or simply an added detail. From his article “Empty Prisons Mean Dangerous

Streets,” which focuses on terrorism and minorites in prison, to “Trump Needn’t Bang His Head

Against the Wall,” which talks about immigration, race is always prevalent, and he addresses it

in a very controversial way. Take his article “Why Obama Won and 2020’s Black Candidates

Couldn’t,” for example. In the article he talks about how Obama won the presidency because he

downplayed the role of race in his campaign while 2020 candidates Kamala Harris and Corey

Booker focused too much on racial issues. Riley’s views are not ones you would expect to find

from a black writer. He believes that racism doesn't really exist and that black people are too

quick to “blame their problems on white people” (“Why Obama Won and 2020’s Black

Candidates Couldn’t”). In addition, Riley writes with quotation marks around words he disagrees

with such as a “‘racist’ criminal justice system” and “voter ‘suppression,’” in an attempt to

downplay their existence. His seemingly negative perception of black people is ironic

considering his own race but it fits right in to his targeted demographic. Though to many people

who preach African American rights and acceptance, this may seem self deprecating and

demoralizing, the fact of the matter is, Riley isn’t really writing to them at all.
Henry | 4