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.


Related Articles:

Acton Lecture Series: 'Excuse Me Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism'

Why Can’t Tesla Sell Cars in Michigan?

$1 Cigarette Tax Hike Helps Smugglers, Not Health Outcomes Highlights Power of School Choice in Michigan

Detroit Students Missed 1.5 Million Days of School Last Year

Detroit Public Schools Bankruptcy Could Cost the State $3.4 Billion

Share More …