Why do reporters always feel the need to comment authoritatively on a politician’s motivations, when in reality they often have no idea what they are talking about? The NYT commits this sin today. In an otherwise excellent piece examining the performance of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under President Bush, the NYT tells readers that the Bush administration “promised to ease what it viewed as costly rules that placed unnecessary burdens on businesses.” Does the reporter know that the Bush administration viewed the rules as placing unnecessary burdens on business? Let me suggest an alternative hypothesis. Many of the businesses that made large campaign contributions to the Bush campaign expected a return in the form of reduced regulation, which would raise profits. No political figure will ever say “I am weakening regulation ‘X’ in order to pay back a supporter for a large campaign contribution,” even if this is in fact the reality. The politician is more likely to say something like “in my view regulation ‘X’ places an unnecessary burden on business.” Of course, it is entirely possible that President Bush views the regulations in question as imposing an unnecessary burden. It is also entirely possible that President Bush does not know or care at all about the burdens imposed by these regulation compared with their benefits and simply wants to reward his political supporters. The NYT reporter does not know which is the case and should not be misinforming readers.
--Dean Baker
