Some articles in the NYT are literally painful to read. In a discussion over the debate on the extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the NYT told readers that: "The substantial margin of passage in both houses obscured visceral disagreements over philosophy and ideology. Those differences could create formidable obstacles for a president of either party [to extend health insurance coverage], in the absence of a landslide like those that preceded creation of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965." Why would anyone think that a debate between members of Congress has anything to do with ideology? How many members of Congress carry around copies of Locke and Rawls as they go to debate on the floor of the Congress? Let's get serious. These are politicians, not political philosophers. They respond to money and interest groups. Is it an accident that the members of Congress who vote against extending Medicare coverage to apply to the whole country happen to get large contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies? The NYT wants readers to think it is, telling them these people are motivated by "philosophy and ideology." Of course the politicians are going to rail against "government healthcare" and "socialized medicine." Is a member of Congress going to stand up and say that they oppose this bill because the insurance industry gives them hundreds of thousands of dollars? (Those supporting measures to extend health care coverage are also politicians responding to interest groups.) To the NYT's credit, this piece is labeled as "news analysis" rather than being presented as just straight news. But it is pretty damn silly analysis, and the NYT has made similiar assertions about politicians motives in news articles.
--Dean Baker
