It would be great if, as a general practice, newspapers did take the time to assess the accuracy and plausibility of the arguments put forward by political figures. If they considered this part of their job, they would have pointed out, for example, that drilling for offshore oil would have never have a substantial effect on the price of oil ever, and none at all for the next decade. If they evaluated the substance of arguments that could have told readers that the projected cost of the Waxman-Markey bill to limit global warming is trivial compared to the cost of the Iraq War. However, newspapers rarely view it as their job to evaluate the validity of the arguments by political figures. That is why it was striking to see the Post tell readers in a news story that Adam Green, the interim chief executive of Change Congress (a grassroots Democratic organization) "in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan [a public health insurance plan]." Of course the Post (a.k.a. Fox on 15th) has not been supportive of President Obama's health care plan.
--Dean Baker
