That they seem a little ... invested ... in continuing controversy?
The coverage, to start with, abandons objective reporting when it presents health care reform as Obamacare without either identifying that term as one the anti-reform activists use or explaining what it means. It's the complete substitution of opinion for objectivity.
APP goes on to set the tone for the article with this reminder of how things went last time apparently:
The last time Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., visited the township to discuss health care reform, he was shoved by an irate constituent who got into the congressman's face over the issue.
Does the article let us know whether the irate constituent was for reform, or against it? Or anything about that constituent's thoughts or feelings? No. Then why bring the incident up, unless you just want to suggest a brawl to keep people reading?
And then there's this:
Adler, a freshman congressman who occupies the 3rd District seat previously held for 25 years by Republican Jim Saxton, does not even support current health care reforms proposed by President Barack Obama and his own congressional leadership.
But as a Democrat, Adler has been on the receiving end of the anger from some opposed to so-called "Obamacare," while getting criticism from some on the left who feel betrayed by the conservative positions he has taken since assuming office in January.
What, really? Does the reporter grasp that there are different proposals, from both House and Senate? Which of them does Adler object to? And why? You'd have to read better reporting to know that Adler opposes not a bill of the President (a quick review of how a bill becomes law would be advised), but the House leadership bill, which is different from the Senate proposal. All of which doesn't get mentioned because the shoving from the last meeting was worth the column inches, and not that.
So-called "Obamacare"? Maybe we should call this so-called objective reporting."
