In its story “Her Wrestling Empire Was Said to Harm Children. Trump Chose Her for Education,” the New York Times quoted one Republican and five Democrats. (That was par for the course—across the Times’s various McMahon stories, critical voices outweigh positive ones three-to-one.) In its piece on the nomination, the only “right-leaning” source The 74 could muster was a fierce DeVos critic who has renounced his Republican affiliation. In a story headlined, “Where Does Linda McMahon, Trump’s Education Secretary Nominee, Stand on Key Issues?,” USA Today found it newsworthy that NEA president Becky Pringle, a relentless DeVos critic, deemed McMahon “unqualified,” “Betsy DeVos 2.0,” and committed to “undermin[ing]” and “privatiz[ing] public schools.” (Vitriolic Pringle quotes appear to be obligatory.) Meanwhile, the only pro-McMahon “quote” in the USA Today account was an offhand mention that McMahon’s “friend” DeVos was supportive on X. (Though the story didn’t even include a quote from DeVos’s tweet.)
In the weeks since McMahon was nominated, she’s tallied six stories in the New York Times, eight in USA Today, and five in the Washington Post. The headlines have a familiar feel: “Linda McMahon Made a Fortune with WWE. Wrestling Scandals Now Shadow Her Rise,” “Trump Pick Linda McMahon is Facing Her Own Sex Scandal,” or the aforementioned “Her Wrestling Empire Was Said to Harm Children. Trump Chose Her for Education.”
In 2020, things were very different. Between Miguel Cardona’s nomination and December 31, 2020, neither the Times nor USA Today devoted a story to him—while the Post’s coverage featured puffery like the editorial board’s cheery declaration that “Miguel Cardona Is an Inspired Choice to Lead the Nation’s Schools.” And it’s not like there weren’t interesting stories to be written about the record of this unknown education official who, for instance, had pioneered the first statewide ethnic studies course requirement.
Stories on McMahon feature rote (but lengthy) accounts of Trump’s campaign pledges but rarely bother to connect her experience to what the Department of Education actually does, which is manage student loans and financial aid—that it’s essentially a megabank with a bite-sized policy shop attached. Given that the next secretary will face an unprecedented clean-up after the FAFSA debacle and the detritus of Cardona’s loan cancellation schemes, having someone in the chair with a background in business operations or loan management might seem newsworthy.
Yet, the coverage has made little or no effort to explore McMahon’s tenure as chief at the Small Business Administration, her 81–19 Senate confirmation in 2017, or her business acumen. Instead, it’s featured weirdly dismissive shots at McMahon and her role in building a multibillion-dollar enterprise. Here’s the New York Times: “Linda McMahon, whose résumé mainly rests on running World Wrestling Entertainment, has faced questions for years over whether she is suitable for important education posts.” The Washington Post quoted a “pro wrestling expert” who explained, “Linda is this well-spoken, congenial, bright, well-dressed woman executive, but she helped run a testosterone-fueled business that was seen as very sleazy for a long time.” (“Was seen as . . .” Well, now. What an interesting use of the passive voice.)
The Education Week story on her nomination did include a solitary mention of her SBA tenure, noting, “During her time leading the SBA, the agency was criticized for the removal of resources for LGBTQ+ business owners; the webpage was later restored” (Missing: any discussion of her management style, track record, or performance at the agency.) Inside Higher Education did offer a couple paragraphs acknowledging McMahon’s skill set but seemingly first felt obliged to have a DEI scholar dismiss such considerations, asserting, “Absurdity when spoken aloud sounds like, ‘Let’s put the lady that led mostly faux entertainment wrestling in charge of our nation’s school system.’” (I’m no expert, but that doesn’t strike me as a very inclusive sentiment.)
The day after McMahon was nominated, the Washington Post homepage featured a triple-bylined attack piece on McMahon. The headline: “Trump’s Education Pick Once Incorrectly Claimed to Have an Education Degree.” The more one read, the sillier the attack got. You see, it turns out that McMahon earned a teaching certificate while pursuing her bachelor’s degree in the 1960s. About 40 years later, in 2009, she filled out a questionnaire by indicating she had a BA in teaching rather than a teaching credential and a BA in French. When this was pointed out, she corrected the record. That was the whole scoop. Seriously. Nonetheless, within 24 hours of McMahon’s nomination, the Post billed this wannabe scandal prominently on its site, and other outlets, including Newsweek and The Daily Beast, jumped on.
Just days after McMahon’s nomination, the legacy media began to uncritically relate the contents of a lawsuit alleging that, under her leadership, the WWE inadequately addressed allegations of child sexual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s. The lawsuit has already been paused, but that can’t undo the hurried rush of speculative attacks that immediately tumbled forth. CNN has run three stories on McMahon, two of them on the lawsuit (including “Linda McMahon, Trump’s Education Pick, Was Sued for Allegedly Enabling Sexual Abuse of Children”). Four of the New York Times’s six pieces on McMahon have mentioned the suit.
In its coverage, The 74 reported, “Some senators will also question whether she’s fit to oversee an agency responsible for protecting students from sexual misconduct.” In its big story on the allegations, Education Week devoted nearly a dozen paragraphs to relating the charges; discussed allegations against other cabinet members; and quoted a political science professor asserting, “This, to me, is like a giant middle finger to the left and the rest of the country.” (The only sources quoted who weren’t Democrats and/or critics? McMahon’s attorney and me.)
As my AEI colleague Max Eden and I observed a couple weeks back:
These are potentially serious allegations. But they’re nothing more than that at this moment. The judicial process is at its best when it is used to carefully parse facts and dispense justice. It is at its worst when filings are used to score political points before the evidence has been weighed and the various claims adjudicated. It would be reassuring if we could trust the media to handle allegations deliberately or at least by a consistent standard, but we can’t.
The coverage of the lawsuit evinced little to no interest as to why the allegations might’ve languished for more than three decades, including 15 years after McMahon left the WWE—only to surface this fall. That was decidedly not how the same reporters covered allegations three years ago, in 2021, when Biden’s nominee for the number two post at the department of education was confronted with multiple lawsuits for failing to adequately address child sexual abuse. That nominee, former San Diego schools superintendent Cindy Marten, was confirmed without reporters ever noting she’d been accused of covering up the rape of a non-verbal special education student, refusing to discipline a teacher who groped female students, and firing an investigator who found evidence of sexual abuse.
Moreover, whereas McMahon is confronted with newly-surfaced allegations from the 1980s, Marten had been deposed about the recent charges. During one deposition, when asked whether another student forcing a kindergarten student to perform oral sex would be a “serious incident,” Marten answered, “It depends . . . Are other disabilities involved? . . . I need to know all of the facts before I determine the seriousness of it.” This was never reported by the legacy media, even though ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN all had the deposition. For McMahon, it seems every allegation will be breathlessly shared ad infinitum. For Marten, even documented evidence wasn’t worthy of notice.
This all feels awfully familiar.
