From Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times, writing with no apparent sense of irony about Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Serena Mancini:
She favors raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, for example, and opposes making Rhode Island a “right to work” state. Her chief focus is creating jobs.
If you doubt the existence or direction of bias at the New York Times, ask yourself when you’re next likely to read a Times piece that says something like:
She favors widespread deregulation, for example, and opposes all taxes on capital income. Her chief focus is alleviating poverty.
Wait, that’s an imperfect analogy, since (unlike the passage from Ms. Seelye) it actually makes sense. Let me try again:
She favors prison terms for adulterers, for example, and opposes legalized contraception. Her chief focus is freedom of sexual expression.
Soon we will have blessed relief from the nonsense of the campaigners, but alas the nonsense of journalists will continue year-round.
Is that first quote really ironic though? You yourself have said in the past that the minimum wage has a negligible impact on the unemployment rate. Or is the irony that the minimum wage at best has no impact on the unemployment rate and at worst increases it, so the connection between her stance on the minimum wage and “creating jobs” is a complete non sequitur?
Just always remember that journalists’ goal is get readers so they can sell ads.
This one bothers me less than the typical NYT stuff. (For example, Steve’s rewriting of an article on NY’s attempt to regulate the nanny business is a prime example of the type of thing they do that frustrates me.) I submit that had Ms. Seelye simply changed:
“She favors raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, for example, and opposes making Rhode Island a “right to work” state. (Such laws make it harder for unions to organize). Her chief focus is creating jobs, and she has proposed starting an innovation institute to help the state move away from its old manufacturing base.”
to:
<>
I would have had really no problem with it. (A problem with the logic of the candidate, but not with the reporting.)
sorry my replacement was:
She favors raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, for example, and opposes making Rhode Island a “right to work” state. (Such laws make it harder for unions to organize). She asserts her chief focus is creating jobs, and she has proposed starting an innovation institute to help the state move away from its old manufacturing base.
Here’s my rewrite:
She favors raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation and opposes making Rhode Island a “right to work” state. But, she maintains, her chief focus is creating jobs.
( http://www.aei.org/publication/ny-times-on-the-minimum-wage-1987-0-00-vs-2014-at-least-10-10-maybe-18-they-had-it-right-27-years-ago/ )
The NYTimes Jan 1987
=== ===
There’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. Most important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.
If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.
=== ===
r/5 Since the reporter was not writing a commentary piece, I would contend the addition of “but” would inappropriately move it in that direction. Imagine Lucy is running for office and contends Head Start is ineffective. She wants to eliminate it, save $7 billion nationally each year, and invest that in some other (presumably to Lucy more effective) educational program. Imagine the reporter wrote: “Lucy wants to remove funding for Head Start. But, she maintains, her chief focus is education.” I think that would not be reporting, but commentary. I would, however, use your wording when talking amongst friends. But, they expect me to add commentary.
I would, of course, be fair for the reporter to add to the suggested replacement in my r/4: “Her opponent opposes an increased minimum wage and supports right-to-work laws contending that Ms. Mancini’s stance on those issues would hurt job growth.” (Assuming the opponent contends that.) Of course, you get the gist. I would hope a reporter could do this more elegantly than I.
@ Joe 1
I believe it is the right to work clause that is ironic, though the MW stuff is arguably ironic as you said.