The Post is guilty of some seriously lazy reporting in its lead story on the Democrat's bill for Iraq War funding. The article reports that the bill includes $21 billion in funding that President Bush did not request. It gives several examples of items that seem to fit the definition of pork, but then notes that the bill includes $2.9 billion for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Is this pork?
It would be reasonable to ask that an article give some systematic breakdown of this $21 billion. How much likely would be appropriated in any case, but just placed in different bills? What percentage is going to pork and what percent is going for real programs? Will this money be spent in one year or over many years? I know that it would take some time to get this information, but I believe that the Post has full-time reporters. Making sure that the numbers presented in their articles provide information to readers would be a good use of their time.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. Any amount you give today will help sustain this crucial work.