The lead story of my Saturday Times print edition here in Boston carried the subheadline, "Conservatives Viewed the House Speaker as Not Anti-Government Enough." By later editions, the subheadline had changed to "Surprise Announcement May Help Avert Another Government Shutdown."
The editor who killed the early subheadline displayed some good judgment in improving it. Alas, that judgment did not extend to editing the rest of the news article about the resignation of Speaker Boehner. It reported, "His downfall again highlighted the sinewy power of a Republican Party faction whose anthem is often to oppose government action....With antigovernment fervor helping to prompt Mr. Boehner's decision, several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination were quick to try to capitalize on the animus."
What are these people talking about with the "antigovernment" language or "oppose government action." These Republicans are some of the same ones who want to build a fence along the Southern border and deploy more border patrol personnel there, use the government's power to ban abortion and stem cell research and flag burning, invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and collect cellphone data for antiterrorism purposes. The Times just doesn't get it. The House Republicans aren't anarchists or rebels. They aren't even anti-government. They are vehemently anti-Obama. But in the American system, the president is not the same as the government. The House of Representatives is also part of the government.
I don't expect the Times to agree with the House Republican critics of Boehner. But as the editor who fixed the subhead (but not the rest of the story) realized, the Times does have a responsibility to describe their views accurately rather than caricature them inaccurately as something that they are not, i.e., "antigovernment."