The Arizona Star recently ran a story on tenth-amendment proposals bubbling up in various states, which would block laws requiring participation in any particular health care system.
It’s an interesting topic, certainly — who is starting these efforts, what do they say, what do opponents say, how successful are they in getting political support. But the Associated Press story starts out like a pro-Obama op-ed:
Republicans opposed to President Obama’s push for a health- care overhaul have mounted state-driven efforts in several states to block federal intervention in health care, with some early success.
The push-back centers in some areas on fact — Obama’s stated determination that all Americans should be required to get health-care coverage, for example.
Other resistance, though, is based on unfounded notions of what has been proposed — fears, for example, that the nation would adopt a single-payer system in which the government would take over health care, something Obama specifically disavowed on Wednesday.
First of all, some pro-life Democrats have voiced opposition to some legislation under discussion, so the opposition isn’t limited to Republicans.
Why is an allegedly neutral, straight-down-the-middle story taking a position on whether the fears of some people in the story are “unfounded” or not?
President Obama said that there’s no reason to fear.
Oh. I see. I had forgotten that the first rule of journalism is to take whatever a politician says at face value and to tell readers “never mind, nothing to see here.”
Cross-posted from State House Call.