Last month, the New York Times reported what appeared to be a bombshell: The United States Department of Defense had squirreled away $22 million to fund the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. This “shadowy” program—run from “the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze,” as the Times tantalizingly put it—“collected video and audio recordings of reported U.F.O. incidents,” some of which the Times offered on its website.
It was quite a scoop, or so it appeared at first blush. But Jeff Wise of New York magazine took a closer look and found there was less to it than met the eye. The Times piece, Wise noted, made “portentous assertions out of context” that were “decidedly short on specifics” and made use of videos that have been “kicking around the internet for some time.”
Importantly, the Times downplayed the fact that the initial request for the appropriation was made by former senator Harry Reid and that most of the money went to Robert Bigelow, the “billionaire entrepreneur and longtime friend” of the former senator. The Times failed to mention that Bigelow had also been a longtime patron of Reid’s political activities, giving thousands of dollars over the years to Reid’s political campaigns and the Searchlight Leadership Fund, the former majority leader’s PAC.
So it seems what the Times actually discovered was another example of how the government wastes money at the behest of special interests. Bigelow’s elevated status in Nevada business and political circles got him the ear of Reid, who was able to secure financing for a pet project, which was discontinued after having revealed little that was not already known.
That was the real story. Why didn’t the Times frame it that way?
Conservatives have long understood that the mainstream media lean left. Journalists vote disproportionately for Democrats, and there is a revolving door between Democratic politics and journalism. News outlets often frame stories to favor Democrats—a favorite among conservatives is noting how often mainstream media outlets talk about “Republicans pouncing” on stories that embarrass liberals, rather than “Democrats reeling.” And editors tend to downplay stories that are uncomfortable for Democrats—remember, for instance, the relative silence regarding the atrocities of abortionist Kermit Gosnell.
The predominant political bias of the mainstream media is for a stand-pat, establishment type of liberalism—rather than radical or reformist. This view generally promotes an expansive role for government, without major changes to the way politics operates inside the Beltway. Accordingly, the press is prone to downplay the outsized influence of special interests when these are aligned with liberal causes and their champions.
Thus, implicit within the Times’s article was the notion that this was a good and defensible use of taxpayer funds, rather than another example of how the wealthy friends of politicians can direct money their way.
That’s almost always the way it goes with media coverage of government spending, no matter how indefensible it might seem. Consider how the media dealt with GOP efforts in 2015 to do away with the Export-Import Bank. This is a government institution that adds negligible economic value and is of primary utility to Boeing, which spends lavishly on the political process. Yet how did the press frame it? The New York Times called it the “81-year-old agency that helps finance many American exports.” USA Today’s description was similar: an “80-year-old federal agency that makes it easier for foreign companies to borrow money to buy U.S.-made products.” In other words, it is a useful, longstanding program—rather than a longtime waste of government resources.
Or consider the way the media characterized Florida senator Marco Rubio’s 2015 attempts to stop the Obama administration from funneling unappropriated money to the health insurance industry to support Obamacare. The real story was that the problematic design of Obamacare, combined with the unilateral actions of the administration to grant various exemptions, had made it difficult for insurance companies to build a profitable foundation on the government-created exchange marketplace. So the Obama administration wanted to direct unappropriated funds to the insurers, who, it must be remembered, had been cast by liberals as the chief villains during the health care debate of 2009.
Did the media highlight the design flaws of the marketplace, the shortsighted actions of the Obamacare administration, its intention to spend money without congressional sanction, or the profit-driven motives of the insurers? Not especially. One typical 2015 headline from the New York Times warned that “Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act.” The story characterized Rubio’s effort as an “attack.” He had “slipped” a “little-noticed” provision “into a giant spending law” that “sent tremors through health insurance markets” and “rattled confidence.” The implication was undeniable: What Rubio was doing was bad.
Contrast these stories with the media’s typical approach to super-PACs, which have of late come to spend vast sums during campaign season. This is cast as “dark money,” which cannot be traced with precision to its origins, but often emanates from a handful of wealthy donors. The clear suggestion in such stories is that these funds are corrupting the electoral process.
The role of super-PACs is no doubt troubling, but when it comes to scrutinizing the governing process, especially the vast concatenation of interest groups and politicians looking to expand the federal government’s footprint, the media are decidedly blasé. Those special interests are “friendlies.” If they get a little extra for their support of the liberal agenda in growing the size and scope of government, that is just how the system works.
The mainstream media, then, are not simply liberal in their orientation. They specifically bow to the tenets of interest-group liberalism. The press not only supports an activist federal government, it is content with the government’s role being mediated by interest groups that have bought their way into the political process, become entrenched, and, in turn, make a profit from their efforts.
Given that interest-group liberalism is the dominant governing ethos in Washington, the press is, from a certain perspective, fairly conservative. How else could the Times shrug its shoulders at a waste of $22 million chasing after UFOs? That is just the price of (liberal) politics.
Jay Cost is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
