Two separate stories in the New York Times Tuesday describe the backers of potential presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, and Jeb Bush, a Republican, in very different terms.
In a piece headlined, “Hillary Clinton caught between dueling forces on education: teachers and wealthy donors,” the former secretary of state is described as navigating politically between teachers’ unions and other Democratic donors. These groups have competing ideas on some areas of education policy.
The Clinton story, authored by Maggie Haberman, refers to the competing groups as “teachers’ unions,” “influential Democratic financiers” or “parents and business advocates.”
The article on Bush, headlined, “Jeb Bush returns to the Washington fund-raising well,” is a look at the former Florida governor’s relations with his own backers and donors. But the Bush supporters are described in traditionally negative terms: “special interests,” “K Street lobbyists” and “political operatives.”
“While Mr. Bush’s financial support from big-name Washington figures will no doubt help fuel his campaign,” reads the story by Eric Lichtblau, “it could also complicate his frequent efforts to position himself as a Washington outsider unschooled in its ways.”
Neither Times story is particularly flattering of Clinton or Bush. But the terms used to describe the White House hopefuls’ respective supporters are strikingly different even though both stories are tagged “Politics” and appeared in the A section of Tuesday’s print edition. (The Clinton story ran on page A1, the Bush story on page A18.)
Carolyn Ryan, the Times’ Washington bureau chief, did not return a request for clarification on the discrepancies.
