Recently, the New York Times found itself tangled up in controversy as it published a piece criticizing the family of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The article, penned by reporter Caroline Kitchener, seemed less like a news story and more like an attack on the concept of family itself. Kitchener, who previously specialized in writing about abortion for The Washington Post, apparently took issue with the Duffy family’s large size and their traditional values. At the time of the article, the Duffy family boasted nine children, and Kitchener’s writing suggested that this was some sort of political stunt rather than a genuine expression of family life.
In the article, Kitchener went so far as to describe the Duffy family’s cooking segment on a television show as a showcase of “props.” The segment featured Mrs. Duffy proudly mentioning her children—who were off at Catholic camp, praying the rosary—while she took a hands-on role in preparing dinner. The article included a rather snarky remark about the division of labor in their home, questioning whether this arrangement represented a retrograde form of patriarchy. To many, this portrayal felt like a harsh critique of loving parenting and a typical American family dynamic.
Given the Duffy family’s longstanding reputation for being genuine and supportive parents, many found the accusations ludicrous. Friends and supporters of the Duffy family recalled playful exchanges about their growing brood, with the joyful chaos that accompanies a large family life. Despite the jabs from the Times, they are committed to raising their kids to contribute positively to society, embodying values that many cherish. It is a focus on love, unity, and joy—a far cry from the negativity implied by Kitchener.
The Duffy’s eldest child, Evita, did not take the article lying down. She took to social media to defend her family, sharing her perspective on the outrageous questions her parents faced from Kitchener. One of those disconcerting questions included whether they had considered abortion when they learned they were expecting her. Evita passionately declared that they are not political props or a public relations stunt; they are simply a loving family who finds joy in their size. This familial bond, she argued, runs counter to the bitter narrative perpetuated by the journalist.
What’s curious is that this scenario opens up a wider discussion about how the media covers families, especially those that don’t conform to the “norm.” The subtext seemed to suggest that having a big family while maintaining a career was somehow unusual or, dare it be said, improper. It’s puzzling why particular journalists might feel threatened by what could be seen as a representation of wholesome values and strong family ties. The questions posed to the Duffy family reflect a certain disconnection with heartfelt family experiences—questions that might even arise from a place of bitterness, rather than curiosity.
Ultimately, the public’s response reflects a broader discontent with the elite media’s portrayal of family life, especially when it doesn’t align with their perspectives. As many rally behind the Duffy family, they find themselves celebrating a lifestyle that embraces both the challenges and joys of raising a large family. Many might even joke about needing a bigger griddle to feed everyone. So, while the New York Times sought to criticize, they instead spotlighted a family that is an embodiment of enduring love, faith, and resilience—a narrative many Americans will continue to support and cheer for.
