The New York Times decided to delve into whether or not some of the Tea Party groups that were discriminated against nonetheless deserved it.  This article is a look at those who got caught up in a discriminatory scheme.  The article pushes the notion that some of those who were discriminated against based on their ideology actually deserved the scrutiny.

The true story is that people were discriminated against.  The story is not that some of those that were discriminated against actually deserved the extra scrutiny.

It reminds me of the controversial “stop and frisk” program initiated by the New York City Police Department.  The New York Times has discussed this policy in its reporting and on its editorial page.  In the non-editorial article cited here, J. David Goodman specifically included in his report the allegation by Mayor Bloomberg that the paper ignores the stories of those whom the policy saved or caught.

It seems to me that the New York Times is fairly hoisted upon its own petard.  In the IRS case they look at the victims of profiling and say that some deserved extra scrutiny irregardless of the discrimination.  In the “stop and frisk” story they refuse to look at those who were profiled and deserved the police attention irregardless of the discrimination.

I wish that the New York Times would universally accept that arguments in favor of discrimination based on the effectiveness of the discrimination must fail.  The New York Times does not accept the argument for race based discrimination and it should not, but it does, accept the argument for ideology based discrimination.

What I think this really shows, at its core, is the ideological filters at the paper.  They don’t treat claims of discrimination uniformly.  If there is a claim of race discrimination it is treated differently than if there is a claim of ideological discrimination.

As a side note, some may argue that the reporting on the specific IRS groups that claim discriminatory behavior by the government is merely good reporting.  They could argue that this type of reporting is merely showing all sides of what has transpired.  This could be acceptable if that same standard was used in other arenas such as in the “stop and frisk” arena. As I always say, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.