When anyone releases a report calling the minimum wage into question, media outlets fall all over themselves in a race to cover it. Newsrooms around the globe compete to see who can come up with the most outrageous headlines and brutal interpretations of the study—words like “kill jobs” and “hurt the very people they intend to help” show up a lot. Those reports then circulate around the internet and are distorted by blogs and accepted into conventional wisdom.

Of course, the media loves a bad-news story, and readers do, too. Stories of doom and gloom earn clicks. (And the corporations who pay big money to advertise in papers and on television generally aren’t in favor of more workers’ rights, either.) But don’t media outlets have a responsibility to report on positive minimum-wage studies, too?

Last month, Kevin Rinz and John Voorheis from the U.S. Census Bureau published an astounding new working paper on the minimum wage. (It’s titled “The Distributional Effects of Minimum Wages: Evidence from Linked Survey and Administrative Data,” and you can read it in full in PDF form here.) The study examines decades’ worth of unique data, and it comes to some pretty thrilling conclusions. You’d think that a study about the minimum wage coming from Census employees in the Trump era would be worth a juicy headline or two, don’t you?

Not one single news outlet that I can find picked up on this report. Seriously. Go check Google News for yourself, and let me know if I’m wrong. Granted, Rinz and Voorheis are economists and the language they use in the report is highly technical, but technical language has never stopped a news outlet from reporting on a negative study. In fact, the only difference I see between this study and some of the other minimum-wage studies that have been heavily covered in the media over the last few years is that the results are overwhelmingly favorable.

I guess it’s up to me to share the good news.