I was struck today by how two of our most reliable press organs covered a couple of significant events yesterday. The Supreme Court held a lengthy argument yesterday in the Loper case, the challenge to the Chevron deference doctrine about which I’ve blogged previously. The NYTimes headline was “Justices Hint at Less Powers for Regulators.” The text of the article focused on questions from Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett which were supportive in varying degrees of keeping some form of Chevron intact. The article also pointed out the political dynamic underlying the case, including the Koch connection. The WSJ headline was “Court Appears Set to Curb Agencies’ Power.” Different tone. No mention of conservative support. Both articles accurate, both somewhat slanted in their approach.
Same day, both publishers also carried stories about legislation to provide military aid to Ukraine and deal with border issues, which have been linked by Speaker Mike Johnson. NYTimes headline: “Johnson Digs In Against a Deal on Immigration-Holds Up Ukraine Aid.” WSJ headline: “Hopes Revived for Ukraine, Border Deal-Johnson Calls Talks ‘Productive.’” Again, both articles accurate but slanted.
The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of NYCLA, its affiliates, its officers or its Board.