Comparison: Politico Lauds â€˜Forcefulâ€™ Govâ€™t Obamacare Argument
Warner Todd Huston | March 29, 2012
The first arguments by the government in support of the already wildly over budget Obamacare law were heard at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday and there is an interesting lesson in media bias that can be seen in the reporting of the dayâ€™s presentation. The difference between how the governmentâ€™s opening arguments was reported by Politico and Fox News is an instructive case of media bias.
First letâ€™s look at how Politicoâ€™s Josh Gerstein and Carrie Budoff Brown reported how the governmentâ€™s arguments were received by the court.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., representing the government, opened his argument Monday with a forceful and solemn plea to the court to grapple with the key questions in the case.
Well, â€œforceful,â€ and â€œsolemn,â€ eh? That sure sounds like the government presented a serious and well-received argument, doesnâ€™t it?
Now letâ€™s see what Fox News had to say about those opening arguments.
On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a â€œpenaltyâ€ and a â€œtax.â€
Wait, â€œneedledâ€? Doesnâ€™t that mean they werenâ€™t taking Mr. Verrilliâ€™s argument very seriously, at least in part?
Yes, yes it doesâ€¦
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase â€œtax penaltyâ€ multiple times to describe the individual mandateâ€™s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because itâ€™s collected through the tax code.
â€œGeneral Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,â€ said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.
Well, you may ask, maybe Politico mentioned the ridicule that Verrilli suffered later in its article on the opening arguments? If you looked for it youâ€™d do so in vain. In fact, Politico did not mention the laughter at all.
As it happens it wasnâ€™t just Justice Alito that evoked laughter directed at the government lackey arguing before them. Justice Bryer also got some laughs at the expense of government man Verrilli.
Yet, Politico never mentioned the laughter. Not once. According to Politico it was all â€œforcefulnessâ€ and â€œsolemnityâ€ by a dutiful and serious Solicitor General. Not the bumbling, gaffe-prone performance that really seemed to occur.
You have to wonder why that is?
Contributor's website: http://thenma.org/blogs/index.php/huston
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.