At 11:56 a.m. last Tuesday, the United States Senate voted to pass its version of the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill, sending it back to the House. Exactly 30 minutes later, this headline appeared: “Senate megabill marks biggest Medicaid cuts in history.”

I have already explained how the Medicaid provisions in budget reconciliation do NOT represent a “cut.” In reality, Medicaid will continue to grow over the coming decade — by roughly $1 trillion, in fact.

But it’s worth examining this article in The Hill in detail to examine the various tricks of the trade that the media use to try and, well, trick people into accepting the leftist perspective. It may not surprise readers to realize that what the media don’t write about is as important as what they do.

One-Sided Coverage

For starters, I emailed the reporter, Nathaniel Weixel, asking him a simple question: “Did you or any of your colleagues write on CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] increasing its Medicaid baseline by $817 billion — or 12 percent — in January compared to just last June?”

Weixel did not respond to my request for comment. He similarly did not respond two years ago, when I asked him why he used one set of terminology (i.e., “vouchers”) for policy proposals put forward by Republicans and another term when Democrats put forth the same proposal.

But at the risk of answering my own question, I recall not a single article in The Hill — or any other publication, for that matter — noting the massive increase in projected Medicaid spending announced in January, which came largely as a result of administrative actions by the Biden administration. So when projected spending goes up by nearly $1 trillion in a short period, it’s a non-issue, rather than an unsustainable explosion of federal taxpayer dollars, a potential massive increase in fraud, and so forth. But when projected spending goes down by roughly the same amount, then it’s “historic cuts.” Bias, anyone?

Partisan Terminology

But the bias doesn’t end there. Weixel’s Medicaid story includes all manner of cues designed to tilt a reader’s bias toward the leftist perspective.

Only Leftist “Experts” Consulted: The story quoted analysts from the Center for American Progress, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. While Weixel described CAP as “Democratic-aligned,” he neglected to mention that the other two foundations also have a leftward slant; while not as outwardly partisan as CAP, they definitely have an ideology behind them. Of course, he didn’t quote any policy experts who support Medicaid reform.

Politicians versus “Experts:” Rather than quoting conservative analysts who can speak to the merits of reforming Medicaid, Weixel instead used a generic quote about the legislation from President Trump, followed by a quick rebuttal that “experts … say … the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction” in Medicaid. Of course, only some “experts” take the view that said reduction will cause harm — but Weixel didn’t bother to quote any who disagree. A variation on this trick has the reporter describing one side’s position — “Republicans argue that …” — allowing him or her to characterize, or mischaracterize, policy views without giving voice to any of the people who hold them.

“Advocacy” Bias: In addition to using the term “experts” to describe the leftists claiming the legislation will harm Medicaid, Weixel also trots out a similarly loaded term: “advocates.” The left and the media (but I repeat myself) use this term frequently. One will almost never hear the term used to describe someone conservative, who “advocates” for less spending — or protecting the unborn, for instance. Instead, the media invariably apply the term to someone promoting more taxes, more spending, and more welfare — more government control, in other words.

The bias, and the contrast, are practically self-evident: “Advocates” care — they just want to help people — and the people who oppose these “advocates” don’t. As Ronald Reagan might say, they’re from the government and they’re here to help!

Media Dishonesty

After spending years reading these kinds of articles, it didn’t surprise me much to learn that National Public Radio had 87 Democrats, and not a single Republican, in editorial positions in its Washington headquarters. Places like The Hill, Politico, and The New York Times likely aren’t far behind.

But the American people aren’t stupid. Many see the same type of examples of bias as those chronicled above, which might explain why trust in the mainstream press continues to fall. Perhaps some prescient publication will return to the Joe Friday model of reporting — “Just the facts, ma’am” — and give us all a break from the gaslighting that people like Weixel engage in every day.