In my last post, I used a New York Times story to show how government interference in the economy distorts the marketplace so much that the automakers are begging the Trump administration to retain the Electric Vehicle mandates. 

Consumers don't like what the automakers are selling, so they want the government to force their customers to shut up and buy the cars anyway. 

Big automakers want to ask Trump to keep Biden EV mandates in place. Consumers don't want the cars, but the companies have already sunk so much money in EVs to comply with federal regulations. Now, they don't want to compete with gas cars. From NYT: https://t.co/HQn4yho11a

— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 23, 2024

That aspect of the story was worth writing about, so I did. Now I want to talk about another aspect of the story: how The New York Times uses its news stories to propagandize the unwary readers into accepting a frame of reference that turns Trump into the "bad guy" and his opponents into the "good guys." 

Yes, the people who are demanding that the government force people to buy products they don't want are the GOOD guys because, well, Orange Man Bad. It's not even the environmentalist arguments they rely on. It is pure slander. 

Watch how the story frames Trump:

Mr. Trump has railed against the E.V. rules, which strictly limit the amount of tailpipe pollution while also ramping up fuel economy standards. They are designed to get carmakers to produce more E.V.s and have been a cornerstone of President Biden’s fight against climate change.

Mr. Trump sees them differently. He has falsely said the rules amount to a Democratic mandate that would prevent Americans from buying the gasoline-powered cars of their choice — a concern of his campaign donors from the oil industry.

And Mr. Trump still holds grievances against some of the automakers, whom he views as having betrayed him because during his first term they supported Obama-era auto emissions rules.

Never once does the Times acknowledge that Trump may believe the mandates are a bad idea, harm consumers, undermine the economy, and impede "making America great again." Instead, Trump opposes these mandates because he is a liar, in the pay of bad people, and holds grievances against the poor automakers. 

This is, of course, pure mind-reading. Trump has said exactly why he opposes the mandates, and his voters agree with him. It has nothing to do with emotions or payoffs. They are a horrible idea. But by framing the whole discussion in terms of imagined feelings and motives the Times gives its readers a view of the world that reinforces the preferred Narrative™. 

Here are some other words tossed into the piece to frame the dispute:

• Grudge
• Grievance
• Revenge
• Furious

Is it any wonder that readers of The New York Times have such a distorted view of Trumpworld? No doubt Trump feels various emotions, has grievances, gets furious, holds grudges, and behaves like anybody else when opposed. But writing about major public policy decisions based on mind-reading and projection isn't journalism, its opinion speculation. 

It's dishonest, too. 

We hear all the time about how Trump lies and lies, but almost ever single claim made about Trump by Biden and Harris was based on an outright hoax, and the Times never said a word about it. 

It's all narrative, and this is one of the ways they get it across. Throw in a bunch of loaded terms as if they represented known facts, and readers walk away with a distorted impression of the debate. Never once does the Times take seriously that Trump or others could oppose the EV mandates for perfectly logical reasons. 

Most people I know oppose the mandates, and I have no grudge, grievance, or desire for revenge. To the extent I am furious, it is that the government is distorting the marketplace, artificially limiting my choices, harming the economy, and making life worse for everybody. 

The Times ignores the real debate, choosing only to slander Trump. That is not journalism. It is journalisming.