double standardFeaturedlibertymedia biasmilitary spendingNew York Times

NYT employs double standard on military spending

Ira Stoll writes for the Washington Free Beacon about the latest journalistic malpractice from a leading legacy media outlet.

The rule of byline inflation holds that the reliability of any news content is inversely proportional to the number of journalists credited with producing it. So it is with a front-page New York Times news article headlined “For Militar, Trump Seeks $1.5 Trillion.”

The article carries the names of an astonishing nine Times journalists. There’s a byline by Tony Romm, and “contributed reporting” credit from another eight individuals: Brad Plumer, Scott Dance, Maxine Joselow, Andrew Duehren, John Ismay, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Lisa Friedman, and Michael C. Bender.

The Times article begins, “With the United States at war with Iran and embroiled in conflicts around the world, the White House asked Congress on Friday to approve about $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year. If enacted, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.”

“The highest level in modern history” language is dramatic. It’s also unusual. When the New York Times writes about Democrat-proposed welfare spending or proposed tax increases, it never, or hardly ever, uses nominal current dollars to claim the “highest level in modern history.”

For example, a March 2023 Times news article about President Biden’s budget proposal began, “President Biden on Thursday proposed a $6.8 trillion budget,” and continued, “The budget contains some $5 trillion in proposed tax increases.” The Times did not describe either the proposed spending level or the proposed tax increase as the biggest in modern history.

A March 2024 Times news article about President Biden’s budget proposal similarly began, “President Biden proposed a $7.3 trillion budget on Monday.” It went on, “The budget proposes about $5 trillion in new taxes on corporations and the wealthy over a decade.” In that article, too, the Times did not describe either the proposed spending level or the proposed tax increase as the biggest in modern history.

Source link

Related Posts

1 of 379