Really, New York Times?

Alright, New York Times, this is getting silly.

From the pressed lips, the downcast eyes and the melancholy blue tie, this picture screams "Oh dear, that didn't go well." Posted with the headline "A Contrite Obama Unveils a Health Fix," it's hard to imagine the New York Times slanting any harder in favor of our president.








Compare this to the Washington Post's article:

The man is in command, and he is 'letting' insurers restore previously canceled plans. This sets a different tone. No less in the man's favor (thanks for 'letting' us get by!), but it makes Mr. Obama look less of a scolded child and gives the article a feel of command. Yes, he admits a mistake, so here's how he's going to fix it. It also feels a little more factual. Using a word like 'contrite' assumes that the journalist knows our president on an intimate level. The WP sticks to quotes from the man himself instead of making their own inferences on his feelings.

The NYT's article is almost completely confusing, but at the end it's hard to ignore the fact that this is a complicated issue to explain and that almost no one in Congress agrees on what to do about it all. The biggest point I wish the article had discussed is this: "Ms. Landrieu’s proposal would allow people to keep their current insurance permanently but, she said, is designed to encourage people to eventually switch to better insurance on the federal exchanges."

What encouragement? That sounds ominous. This is probably the most important aspect of the article because this is something that the reader can try to act on (by giving opinions to congress people). Do I want my representative to follow along with Ms. Landrieu's proposal? It almost seems like, from the lack of information, that it doesn't matter what the American people think. It seems like these guys are an autopilot, and we don't get a say in the matter. That worries me.

The Washington Post article seemed more complete; quotes that the NYT used, but more of them so the reader achieves a better sense of context. It also stresses that despite the President being willing to allow people to stay under their old policies for another year, that this change has come too late for most independent companies. They've already made the changes necessary to comply with Obamacare, and that changing things again will just raise premiums (again) and cause more damage to the system.

The WP article took a much more critical tone. Instead of quoting Ms. Landrieu's proposal that worried me so much, they instead quoted someone who summed up all of the bills being proposed right now: "Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said that all of the current bills pending in Congress, which would enable consumers on the individual market to extend their plans, could change the makeup of marketplaces’ risk pool and force insurers to raise prices."

From word usage to the pictures utilized on the front page, the NYT bias is showing again. The WP ran an article that seems much more fair to Obama and to his critics, as opposed to the pitying tone of the NYT article emanates.