Washington Post Bias

Here is the lead paragraph of a page one story in the Washington Post today, “Republicans Planning for Full Control of Congress”:

White House officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill are so optimistic about winning control of both chambers of Congress in next month’s elections that they have begun mapping how they would use their new power, including the possibility of speeding up tax cuts that were to take effect gradually.

This is very dramatic claim, since overconfidence is a cardinal sin in politics. The article, however, presents no evidence whatsoever — none, zilch, nada — to support this assertion.

Evidence is presented that business groups are preparing wish lists. The White House is quoted saying that Republican control of the Senate would help it pass its proposals. “Republican officials” are referred to who are pleased — “explaining their optimism,” is how the article puts it — at poll results showing voters don’t blame Bush for economic problems. Other “Republican sources” said they are developing plans to have in place if they do take control.

None of this is surprising. Indeed, given the closeness of the parties currently it would be irresponsible not to have contingency plans for moving into majority status. But absolutely no evidence or support is given for the striking assertion that all this planning is taking place because Republicans “are so optimistic about winning control of both chambers of Congress in next month’s elections.” None.

Does the Washington Post have editors? If so, what do they do?

Finally, consider what get’s reported as fact, and what is duly mentioned as an assertion:

As the administration prepares initiatives for the new Congress, White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey recently met unannounced with 15 chief executives of major corporations at a home in Manhattan to solicit their suggestions. A White House official said Lindsey has also met with consumer, labor and nonprofit groups.

The WP presumably confirmed, and so reports as fact in its own voice, that Lindsey met with “15 chief executives … at a home.” The White House claimed he also met with consumer, labor, and nonprofit groups. Does the reporter bother to confirm this? Find out, if true, how many groups or people from those groups he met with? Whether any of these meetings were “announced”? Were “in a home”?

No. Otherwise, the story might have been that Lindsey met with business, labor, consumer, and non-profit groups to solicit suggestions about legislative initiatives, especially since the Republicans might find themselves in majority in the next Congress. And what kind of story would that be?