I suppose survivor bias is the issue, not in terms of actual surviving, but in terms of which still have their jobs, but there's a weird contradiction between general journalistic disdain for things like "better health care" or "free college" or "universal pre-K" or "not sending people to the soylent green factory" and the fact that at least some of these people have or are likely to experience their own personal economic downturn.
Who knows what they think of all of these things individually, but in journalism you are allowed to, in fact supposed to, squawk "BUT HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT" any time someone offers up a nickel to a needy child in the form of government assistance, even if that plan is accompanied by an invisible-to-the-reporter plan to pay for it by raising Howard Schultz's taxes by 5 cents, but otherwise ignore such considerations. There are plenty of acceptable opinions in supposedly objective political journalism, and perhaps the most prominent one is that cutting the deficit is always good and extremely important, and that the only way to do this is by cutting socialsecurityandmedicareandwelfare.
