Republican twitter channels lit up CBS for their reporting on Kamala Harris’ “No tax on tips” campaign idea. While many were like schoolgirls on the playground arguing ‘Trump wore it better’ there is one major lesson news media outlets have to learn from this blatant act of biased tweeting. When two parties have the same idea, the media needs to treat them equally.
On June 17, 2024, CBS – “America’s Most Watched Network” tweeted, “Former President Donald Trump’s vow to stop taxing tips would cost the federal government up to $250 billion over 10 years, according to a nonpartisan watchdog group.”
While it’s a notable knock on President Trump’s proposed policy, there is something blatantly wrong about the tweet. “Costing the government” is the wrong terminology, which any good copyeditor with any sort of ethical standard would change. The word used shouldn’t be costing but actually ‘reducing revenue.’
A cost is money going out (ie an expense like when we give money to WHO). Reducing revenue (loss of revenue is also an acceptable phrase) is when people stop buying something (or in this case turning their money over to the government because of taxes). For example less people are buying Starbucks because their coffee takes too long to make and it’s expensive. This is a loss of revenue for Starbucks.
Using the word ‘cost’ in this context makes it sound as if the government already has this money. This is not the government’s money… yet. It becomes their money when they tax it.
When journalists conflate economic terminology in its purest form it manipulates and changes the relationship the average reader has with money. Just like a gun magazine is different than a clip (but people use them interchangeably) a cost is different than a loss of revenue and we need to stop using them as equal terminology.
Nearly a month later, CBS did themselves no favors by posting, “Vice President Kamala Harris is rolling out a new policy position, saying she’ll fight to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.”
The thing CBS did wrong (which no other outlet did) is make it seem like it was an original idea from Vice President Harris.The tweet is also significantly more positive than the one posted of President Trump.
Aside from the tweets, when you click the articles, they are clearly written with bias. The first sentence of the CBS article on Trump is identical to the tweet. Yet, this factoid of how much money this loss of revenue will affect the federal government is buried and can be found in the second to last paragraph in the article about Harris.
Further comparing the articles written about Trump and Harris there is a significant change in tone. The article on President Trump is completely negative and features the CRFB President Maya MacGuineas calling the stance “pander as their political strategy, which leaves the country so much weaker.” She later added, “which doesn’t address how it would be paid for.” But again, it’s not something that would have to be paid for because it is not a cost but a loss of revenue!
Meanwhile, the article on Vice President Harris notes all those who support her ideal, “White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Biden supports Harris’ proposal.” They also note, “The Culinary Union, which represents 60,0000 hospitality workers in Nevada, praised Harris for the policy announcement.”
To CBS’ credit, the second sentence notes “It’s a proposal her opponent, former President Donald Trump, has touted all summer in an effort to win over tipped workers.” However, the rest of the article is giving her praise, while President Trumps article makes this proposal sound like a very bad idea.
Whichever party actually accomplishes this idea (it’s unlikely either will), it will still allegedly reduce the government revenue by $250 Billion over 10 years. It’s not a bad thing provided the government has the capability to cut spending. Which only one of these two candidates have proposed (and I’ll give you a hint it’s not Kamala).
If different political parties have the same idea, they need to be treated the same. Even in tweets. If one cannot recognize when candidates have the same idea and treat those two parties the same, you better not be calling yourself a journalist.
CBS still calling themselves a news organization after this tweet debacle (and several other issues over the years) is disrespectful to those who actually are. More importantly, journalists and copy editors need to choose their words more carefully and recognize when they are manipulating terminology.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a news media columnist and features writer for Barrett Media. She has experience in almost every facet of the industry including: digital and print news; live, streamed, and syndicated TV; documentary and film productions. Her prior employers have included NY1 and Fox News Digital and the Law & Crime Network. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
