Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« "That's 1 for You and 3 for Me" -- But Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing | Main | "Celebrity SLAPP-Down" with Dom DeLuise »

September 25, 2006


Kevin O'Reilly

While this story may not have done a good job of it, one reason why reporters tend to favor the "undue influence" storyline is that it is purportedly objective. To explicitly say that the governor has made the wrong decisions on insurance bills would be outright opinion, a no-no in straight news reporting.

But if it can be couched in terms of "undue influence" then it's more passable. In this case, the story doesn't even appear to pass muster on that front but that's the genesis, generally, for this type of approach.


We get this type of reporting at the Boston Globe and Boston Herald all the time. Every place a targeted politician eats or stays is "posh" or "swank." The adjeectives are always meant to imply some degree of nefariousness. It would be sickening if it weren't quite so obvious.

BTW, wouldn't a bill that treated in-state carriers differently than inter-state carriers be in violation of the Commerce Clause?

The comments to this entry are closed.