A Times news article about the decision by Congress not to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank includes the following passages:
For the longer term, advocates of the bank in both parties believe that by the end of July they can foil the antigovernment Republicans in Congress who blocked the bank's reauthorization and pull off a legislative Lazarus act restoring the agency's full powers for up to five years...
"We did it!" the antibank conservatives at the antigovernment advocacy group Heritage Action for America exulted in an email hours before the midnight deadline for the bank charter. [Emphasis added.]
It's just plain inaccurate for the Times to call these Republicans, or the Heritage Foundation, "antigovernment." They are the same ones who in many instances want to increase spending on the Defense Department and on immigration enforcement at the border. In many cases, they favor increased government regulation of abortion, and they oppose decreased government control of illegal drugs. It would be just as inaccurate for the Times to start calling Barney Frank or Bernie Sanders "antigovernment" because they favor less government regulation of abortion, immigration, and marijuana.
It's as if the Times doesn't understand that there's a difference between Republicans, or conservatives, and anarchists. Or as if the newspaper doesn't comprehend that being against big government, or being against some wasteful or unnecessary government programs, is not the same thing as being against all government.
If Democrats or liberals want to criticize Republicans as "antigovernment" and the Times wants to quote them doing so that would be one thing. But in this case, that isn't what is happening. Instead, the Times news reporter is, on her own, hurling inaccurate adjectives at politicians and advocacy groups. It's pretty egregious.