The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

. . . as I am about University of Alabama football. But whereas I make no secret of my Crimson Tide loyalties, the Washington Post engages in its ObamaCare boosterism under the aegis of neutrality:

Friday's Washington Post offers a highly timely article on its front page: grass-roots liberal anger at southern Democrats who voted against health "reform." But the Post hints at its own anger between the lines. The caption under its photo on page A-22 reads: "Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) voted against health-care reform even though it is badly needed in the largely rural district he represents."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey remarks:

That's an objective caption?  It should read, "Rep. Larry Kissell explains his position on health-care reforms to his North Carolina constituents," since that appears to be what the picture depicts. 

And veteran journalist Danny Glover of Accuracy in Media writes:

We weren't even allowed to use the word "reform" at [Congressional Quarterly] when I covered the health-care debate in 1993-94 because the word implies that something is bad and needs changed. It gives credence to one viewpoint in the debate. We used phrases like "health-care overhaul" or the even more generic "health-care legislation."

The same kind of rhetorical games were involved in immigration "reform," where anyone who opposed the Senate bills of 2006-07 was accused not only of being "anti-reform" but also "anti-immigrant." Now, if you oppose the current legislation, you're accused of being "anti-reform" and "anti-health."