Media Portrayed Debt Ceiling Cave-In as Triumph of Bipartisanship

by Julie Hollar and Jim Naureckas

When Congress passed the debt ceiling 

deal hammered out by President Joe 

Biden and House Majority Leader 

Kevin McCarthy, centrist media celebrated.

If we had anything like a responsible 

White House press corps, we never would 

have gotten to this point. Treating the Republican gambit—demanding deeply unpopular policy measures in exchange for 

allowing the government to pay off debts 

Congress had already authorized—as anything other than economic hostage-taking 

gave it the legitimacy the party needed to 

stick with it without fear of massive political 

blowback (CounterSpin, 5/5/23).

Instead, the press corps we have gave 

three cheers for bipartisanship.

‘Complaints on either side’

NPR’s Domenico Montanaro (6/1/23) hailed 

the compromise in a piece headlined, “Don’t 

Believe the Hype: Low-Key Lawmakers 

Helped Avert a Debt Ceiling Crisis.” A paean 

to “pragmatists,” the article argued that it was

those who eschewed the wings of their 

parties—which have some of the most 

vocal, attention-getting members—who 

averted a potentially calamitous, first-ever 

US debt default.

Montanaro offered a both-sides framing 

of the naysayers:

There were plenty of well-founded complaints on either side—on the left, worries 

about increased work requirements that 

could hurt people in poverty, nervousness 

about the environmental impact of spedup energy permits; on the right, continued 

head-shaking about what they see as outof-control spending and debt, now topping $30 trillion.

His analysis simply assumed 

that some sort of deal needed to 

be worked out to begin with: If 

a hostage-taker complains that 

their demands have only partially been met, 

how well-founded is that complaint?

On top of the false premise, Montanaro 

had to stretch to make both sides’ “complaints” seem at all comparable, matching the 

left’s “worries” and “nervousness”—about 

harming people and the environment—to 

the right’s “what they see as” problems. But 

there’s solid research behind the “worry” 

that work requirements exacerbate hardship 

(CBPP, 3/15/23), and speeding up energy 

permits is intended to increase fossil fuel 

production (American Prospect, 6/2/23), 

which is precisely what must be halted to 

stave off the worst climate change disasters.

And however much right-wing politicians 

shake their heads about the debt, it’s journalists’ duty to point out the disingenuousness 

of a party that runs up debt via tax cuts, and 

then pretends to favor fiscal responsibility 

when it comes time to pay the bills (FAIR.

org, 1/25/21).

‘Far-right and hard-left’

The New York Times also luxuriated in the 

outpouring of bipartisanship, with chief 

White House correspondent Peter Baker 

(5/28/23) reporting that Republicans’ success 

in holding the economy hostage “bolsters 

President Biden’s argument that he is the one 

figure who can still do bipartisanship in a 

profoundly partisan era.” He added, though, 

that the deal “comes at the cost of rankling 

many in his own party who have little appetite for meeting Republicans in the middle.”

Another Times piece (5/31/23) described 

“a critical vote to pull the nation back from 

the brink of economic catastrophe”: “With 

both far-right and hard-left lawmakers in 

revolt over the deal, it fell to a bipartisan coalition powered by Democrats to push the 

bill over the finish line.”

When the Times reports that the “far 

right” and “hard left” both oppose something, that’s a sure sign that the paper thinks 

it’s a good thing. 

One consistent theme was the compulsion to declare political winners, even 

if media couldn’t always agree on who 

won. “House Passes Debt Ceiling Bill in 

Big Win for McCarthy,” judged The Hill

(5/31/23). “Apostle of Bipartisanship: Why 

US Debt Ceiling Deal Was a Victory for 

Joe Biden,” explained the British Guardian (6/1/23). A USA Today piece (6/1/23) 

made the bold claim, “Debt Ceiling Plan 

Passes Senate. Who Wins? Everyone, and 

Here’s Why.”

In fact, the deal preserves tax cuts for 

the wealthy and funding for the Pentagon, 

while cutting the rest of discretionary funding, forcing more work requirements on recipients of public assistance, fast-tracking 

fossil fuel projects and weakening environmental protections—all great for corporations and wealthy political donors, and 

terrible for most people. But both major 

parties agreed to inflict this damage, and 

that in itself makes it good news for establishment media. ■ 

Extra! The Newsletter of FAIR—The Media Watch Group July 2023 Vol. 36, No. 6