 Share
|
« Previous Fallows | Next Fallows » |
Email
Print
|
A good story in the Washington Post, and then...
By
Yesterday I mentioned that the Washington Post had covered the recent climate-email story as another interesting political flap, whereas the NYT had noted that the email controversy did not affect the status of "decades of peer-reviewed science" on the climate front.
Today's WaPo has a strong story doing just what I said newspaper reporters often find difficult: Saying flat-out that certain claims are true (or false), without relying on "critics contend" quotes to that effect. The story is by Lois Romano and Alec MacGillis; it concerns Sen. Joe Lieberman's recent comments on health-care reform legislation; and it says plainly that Lieberman is wrong. For instance (emphasis added by me):
On the other hand, I see just now, online, that tomorrow the Post is publishing an op-ed on climate science by.... Sarah Palin! She is beyond doubt a celebrity and a political phenomenon. But who, exactly, has ever said that she knows anything op-ed worthy about climate change and climate science? I look forward to the "we are a serious newspaper" explanation for this choice.
Update: I see that the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder weighed in on this point earlier this evening.
Today's WaPo has a strong story doing just what I said newspaper reporters often find difficult: Saying flat-out that certain claims are true (or false), without relying on "critics contend" quotes to that effect. The story is by Lois Romano and Alec MacGillis; it concerns Sen. Joe Lieberman's recent comments on health-care reform legislation; and it says plainly that Lieberman is wrong. For instance (emphasis added by me):
"Lieberman says the public option is a sop to supporters of full government-run health insurance. He argues that the proposal lacks public support, although polls show a majority favor the concept. He says the government has no place in providing health insurance, despite its role in overseeing Medicare and Medicaid.I note this in fairness, and in support.
"Most of all, he insists that a public option would drive the country further into debt. But this argument muddles how the new system will function and is at odds with independent assessments... A strong public option would lower the bill's cost by tens of billions of dollars, the Congressional Budget Office found....
"Confronted with the cost-saving assessments of a strong public option, Lieberman concedes the point, but he says an aggressive government-run plan would put undue pressures on medical providers and force them to shift costs to private insurers. Put simply, he opposes the public option in any form, regardless of whether it reduces costs.
On the other hand, I see just now, online, that tomorrow the Post is publishing an op-ed on climate science by.... Sarah Palin! She is beyond doubt a celebrity and a political phenomenon. But who, exactly, has ever said that she knows anything op-ed worthy about climate change and climate science? I look forward to the "we are a serious newspaper" explanation for this choice.
Update: I see that the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder weighed in on this point earlier this evening.
