In the old days, the President would typically propose legislation, then the House would pass a bill, the Senate would pass a bill and then a joint House-Senate reconciliation committee would work out a compromise that could pass both houses and be signed by the President.
According to Republicans, the way the US government works is that the Republican Senate Majority Leader (Mitch McConnell) proposes bills that Republicans like, Senate Republicans pass that bill, and if Democrats don’t vote for it, then Democrats are responsible for Congress not getting anything done. The NY Times seems to think this is how things should and do work too:
NY Times: Hopes Dim for More Stimulus as Democrats Block Narrow G.O.P. Plan, Sept. 10, 2020.
Prospects for any additional stimulus to address the coronavirus pandemic’s devastating toll before the election darkened considerably on Thursday, when a whittled-down Republican plan failed in the Senate on a partisan vote.
Democrats voted unanimously to block the proposal from advancing, calling it inadequate to meet the mounting needs for federal aid, in the latest indication of a lack of political will to reach an agreement, even as critical federal aid for individuals and businesses has run dry.
Why can’t the NY Times present this more clearly, explain what the process should be and how it is not working because Mitch McConnell won’t negotiate with Democrats and proposes bills filled with measures he knows they won’t vote for? A good and helpful newspaper would also present a clear side-by-side analysis of the Heroes Act that House Democrats passed, the Heals Act that Senate Republicans proposed but didn’t vote on, and the skinny bill that Senate Republicans passed but didn’t attract any Democrats, like this article from CNN:
CNN: Here's what's in the GOP's 'skinny' stimulus bill -- and what's missing, Sept. 8, 2020.
… The legislation could face a procedural vote as soon as Thursday, but has little chance of ever becoming law. There are still several Republicans threatening to vote against the new proposal and it's unlikely to gain any support from Democrats -- who are unified behind a much larger $3 trillion stimulus package that passed the House in May. …
… Here's how the three different pieces of legislation compare: ...
The Washington Post mostly wrote a he-said, she-said article, but at least provided some context:
Washington Post: Congressional leaders insist coronavirus relief deal is needed but point fingers on inaction, Sept. 11, 2020.
A simple side-by-side comparison with the House Heroes bill would show how inadequate the skinny bill was and why Democrats wouldn’t vote for it. Such a presentation would have let the reader understand and decide for her/himself which bill they preferred instead of relying on what Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, or Donald Trump had to say about it.
Trump and the New York Times seem united in blaming Democrats for there being no economic relief provided to desperate Americans. Mr. “Art-of-the-Deal” Trump and Senate Republicans get no blame from the NY Times.
The NY Times has many excellent articles every day on a variety of topics. Their long investigative pieces are especially well-researched, well-written, and provide valuable information. The editorials (from their Editorial Board) and OpEd pieces, many written by strong liberals, are often quite helpful.
But in their political news coverage, the NY Times always seems to assume the worst about Democrats and think Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are just fine. IOKIYAR seems to be their motto. Reading their coverage one would think that nothing Donald Trump has done before or during his presidency — neither his constant telling of lies, his withholding of important documents from Congressional scrutiny, his uninhibited racist support for white nationalists, his callousness for those dying of COVID-10 and for soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, his many illegal acts, nor the endless chaos and turmoil of his administration — can compare with the horrors of Hillary Clinton’s private email server (which required multiple front-page articles in the month before the 2016 election). Sycophantic support of Trump by Congressional Republicans and their blocking of all Democratic efforts also gets scant mention.
Will we ever see actual unbiased journalism — with context and explanation — from the New York Times political news department?
Note: This post was originally a comment, but I was encouraged to turn it into a post, so here it is, slightly expanded.