What's wrong with "objective" journalism today? Here's a clue, from AP, doing a story about the "deem and pass" process under consideration to pass the health care bill:
WASHINGTON --It is a brazen abuse of Congress' rules. Or a legitimate tactic used many times by both parties.
Five hundred words later, I promise you, the reader is no wiser as to whether it's an abuse of rules or a legitimate tactic used many times. One byline and three other people listed as contributing to this report, and no one bothers to tally up how many times it's been used (if at all), or whether both parties have used it. Just quotes from politicians and leadership on each side. A bit more:
Using rhetoric reminiscent of the tea party movement, the GOP says Democrats are flagrantly ignoring the will of the American people by trying to pass the legislation to reshape the U.S. health care system without a direct House vote on the bill approved by the Senate in December.
Democrats responded Tuesday that the moves they are contemplating have been used by both parties numerous times to pass legislation such as huge increases in the government's ability to borrow money, restrictions on immigrant workers and creation of a presidential line-item veto, which was later ruled unconstitutional.
And so on. Hundreds of words like that--one paragraph relaying what the Republicans are saying, the next what Democrats are saying. Alternating accusations, sans fact-checking, make up the entirety of the story.
Compare that to David Waldman's explanation of the parliamentary maneuver. Or, to be non-Daily Kos-centric, check in with Ezra Klein. Or Marc Ambinder. Or Harold Meyerson. Any one of these people alone are shedding infinitely more light on the subject than the AP report is.
Really, this is the worst sort of stenographic "he said"/"she said." If anyone can read that whole story and find one thing of value, one nugget of clarification or knowledge that it brings to the current debate, please post it in comments. Because from here, it looks like a waste of four "journalists" standing next to arguing speakers, fighting over who can hold the microphones closest to the mouths of power.
It'd be nice to think that somehow, there's more to this journalism thing than that. But the important thing, of course, is that these reporters could pick up the phone and get access for these oh-so-enlightening quotes. Hard to see how the republic could survive without it.