Same event, different conclusions
Look beyond the headlines, focus on the facts
It’s amazing how different news outlets can take the exact same event and draw diametrically opposed conclusions. Like, literally the exact opposite. For example, today I had to laugh when I saw how the Washington Post and New York Times had completely opposite assessments of the impact of the Trump-Musk rift on the Department of Government Efficiency. The lesson this hammers home to me? Ignore the headlines and focus on the facts.
Take a look at these headlines:
The first is from the New York Times on June 7. The second is from the Washington post on June 8.
The Times states that members of DOGE are now “embedded in multiple agencies” and that their strategy of transforming government, with deep cuts in spending and personnel, is being “institutionalized,” though it also says the future of DOGE’s role itself and some of its personnel is in question.
The Post in contrast argues that DOGE’s “influence was waning” even before the Musk-Trump split, with Cabinet officials and senior staffers “regaining power.” It says Cabinet officials are moving to rehire some workers and, while DOGE retains clout with staffers moving into permanent jobs in some agencies, “other departments have been forcing the cost-cutting group to back off.”
There’s more of course if you sift through the articles, but I had to laugh when I read these two together. I have no doubt both the Times and the Post were diligently trying to assess the impact of the Trump-Musk split on DOGE and its efforts as accurately as they could. And still they came out with basically opposite conclusions.
What lessons does this have for us mere consumers of news? Look beyond the headlines. Find the facts in the articles (which are the same for both) and draw your own conclusions—or no conclusion at all, if not warranted.
In this case, both articles note that the cost-cutting approach that DOGE represents is continuing. Maybe that’s the important information here, but you wouldn’t get it from reading the headlines.