Ezra Klein Is Wrong On This Issue

Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly ran an interesting piece, stating that judges who voted against the Affordable Care Act, or what the conservatives are calling ObamaCare, receive more press attention than those who voted for the bill.

He then broke it down by the numbers showing that on verdict 1, which supported the Democratic position of Health Care, received an average of 581 words from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Politico.

On verdict 2, which also went in favor of the Democrats and the Obama administration, received an average of 438 words per article from the same four news agencies.

However, when verdict 3 came out by Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, whose decision went against the Democrats, the same four news agencies wrote an average of 1648 words in articles. Then yesterday, January 31st, another Federal Judge in Florida issued verdict 4 against the Health Reform Bill, and receive an average of 1742 words from the four. Mr. Benen question was, “If there’s a sensible explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.”

Ezra Klein, who writes for the Washington Post responded to Mr. Benen’s article saying,

“I actually think there is a sensible explanation for this: The two judges who ruled for the bill upheld the status quo. And they went first. So their rulings changed nothing. No one could accuse me of harboring an anti-ACA agenda, but I didn’t give those rulings much coverage.

The two judges who ruled against the bill called for enormous changes to the status quo, and enormous changes to the status quo are almost the definition of what “news” is. These two rulings have genuinely called the bill’s future into question, and that’s a big story.”

Well, although I tend to agree with Ezra Klein on many issues, and besides the fact that we share the same first name, I’ll have to disagree with his position on this matter.

Benen is right! There is simply no sensible explanation for the one-sided coverage. And although some may claim the sensationalism of a Federal Judge voting against the status quo is the “definition of what news is,” I prefer to think of the sensationalism of a life changed, if the Health Care reform law remains in effect. Now that’s news!


I’m just tired of the lies and nonsense coming from the GOP, so this is my little contribution to combat the nonsense!


  • Pingback: Judge Rules Health Care Is Constitutional. News Media Gone Fishing()

  • Ezra Grant


    Hmmm, well although I see your point – that being that these reporters are trying to “sell papers,” the news must be the news and not sensationalism. I think they must report the news as it happens, giving equal time to the bad and the good parts of the news.

    We all know we don’t hear enough good news, and some of us are so tired of hearing huge negativity being reported and little to none of the positive, that when the positive is reported, we will buy!

  • Amy

    C’mon Ezra! I agree that the lives that will change for the better if and when the bill passes is a wonderful outcome, but your namesake at the Washington Post can’t help sell papers if his articles don’t attract readers. And its far more interesting and informative to read and speculate about the judges voting against ACA and how their votes might effect the decision making process of their district, than the ones who approve it. And then again in the end, it’ll be the numbers that matter most.