The press Plays It’s Hand

Specifically the Washington Post here. Before the debate on the Iraq war even begins in the House, the WaPo comes out with an article that is rather badly, and rather obviously, skewed. While the debate is an obvious political ploy to force some people to declare one way or the other and stop trying to straddle, the Post paints it almost exclusively in terms of Republican dissenters.

But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers' misgivings about Bush administration policy — and years of congressional support for it — in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.

"I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), a usually soft-spoken backbencher who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?"

By my count there are seven mentions of Republicans – almost all against the debate – versus just two Democrats. That's kind of slanting the article, don't you think? Why did they not find an equal number of Democrats to quote? Why did they not balance the anti-debate Republicans with pro-debate Democrats?

I think you know why.

UPDATE: AP has  report on the actual start of the debate which goes the other way and highlights the dissent within the Democratic party. I guess if you read both you'll get a fair representation of this complex issue.