In its report on the confirmation of HUD Secretary Ben Carson, the New York Times made the decision to frame him as an anti-government amateur.
The Times went out of its way to negatively note Carson’s lack of government experience, writing, “Unlike other cabinet members chosen by President Trump, Mr. Carson, who has no experience running a large federal bureaucracy, did not face much pushback from Democrats during his confirmation process.” (Emphasis added.)
Describing Carson’s limited government philosophy, the Times said, “Rather than embrace the programs that once sustained his family and the families around him, he has adopted standard Republican beliefs that too much government help — both in desegregating neighborhoods and in lifting people from poverty — can discourage people from working hard.”
That is not objective reporting. It is dripping with condescension.
Here’s another excerpt from the article: “Mr. Carson’s views worry many of his critics who believe the federal government should be doing more, not less, for the nation’s cities, where glittering downtowns and increasingly gentrified neighborhoods are often surrounded by areas of poverty and violence, with predominantly residents of color.”
That is true. But its veracity does not necessitate its inclusion.
Without delving into deeper analyses of media bias, the subtlest incarnations are often the most damaging, such as when reporters frame objective facts from their anti-conservative perspectives.
For an instructive example, look no further than the New York Times’ treatment of another secretary appointed directly from the private sector.
Sally Jewell, who served as secretary of the interior in the Obama administration, was plucked straight from her role as CEO of outdoor supply chain REI to lead her department in 2013. She also had absolutely “no experience running a large federal bureaucracy.”
But did the Times make note of that?
No.
The paper actually framed her private sector experience as a plus. In fact, the headline was, “Obama’s Choice to Lead Interior Dept. Has Oil Sector and Conservation Credentials.” Jewell was described as “a former oil company engineer and longtime advocate for conservation and outdoor recreation.”
The report explained, “Ms. Jewell, 56, who also had a 19-year career as a commercial banker, took over as chief executive of REI in 2005. The company, which is based in Kent, Wash., just south of Seattle, has since grown to nearly $2 billion a year in sales.”
To be fair, both the report on Carson and the report on Jewell included positive and negative details about each nominee. In juxtaposition, however, you can clearly see the malpractice.
For what it’s worth, the same reporter who wrote the Carson article used almost the same language in her article on the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, describing her as, “a wealthy Republican donor with almost no experience in public education.”
That reporter was also shut down by MSNBC host Chris Matthews after he questioned whether she could name any pro-life reporters at her own paper during an exchange on media bias last fall. She also covers “social justice issues,” so that speaks for itself.
The bottom line is that the paper went out of its way to make Carson look bad and Jewell look good. The reporting may be factual, but it certainly is not fair.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
