One of the ways press coverage gets slanted is that some people get their motives questioned, while others do not. A great example is the front of today's New York Times metro section. "Expansion of Bike Lanes in City Brings Backlash," is the headline over one article about a "backlash" that for the purposes of the Times article consists of exactly two quoted individuals. The first is Leslie Sicklick, 45, "a dog walker and substitute teacher." The other is Norman Steisel, "a former sanitation commissioner and deputy mayor." The article doesn't say or probe whether Mr. Steisel or Ms. Sicklick wanted jobs in the Bloomberg administration, or whether they know how to ride bikes, or whether they are just people who don't like change.
On the same section front is an article headlined "State Didn't Vet Advisers on Chancellor Pick for Conflicts." It begins, "As new revelations surfaced about extensive ties between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the panel evaluating his choice for school's chancellor, state officials acknowledged on Monday that they did not screen the panel members for conflicts of interest or connections to the Bloomberg administration before appointing them."
In other words, if you criticize the Bloomberg administration, your remarks get taken at face value by the Times, but if you might agree with the Bloomberg administration, you are suspect for either getting money from the mayor or wanting some.
An article last month in the neighborhood paper the Villager, uncredited by the New York Times, also reported on Ms. Sicklick's anti-bike-lane activism. That article described her as "an unemployed teacher." The Villager article also quoted her as saying, "A lot of these bikers that he's making the bike lanes for, they're not even from New York." It's not exactly the most welcoming attitude one can have toward immigrants or tourists.
