Numerous readers have written The Times to criticize President Obama and congressional Democrats for championing an unpopular healthcare redorm law while, the writers say, exempting themselves from it. For example, Daniel A. Cowell of Monrovia wrote: 'No one (especially those in Congress) can realistically expect the president to budge on Obamacare. This bill is his lifeblood, his legacy. Yet still, is it asking too much for him to not exempt himself, as well as Congress, from his own health law?'
Regular readers of The Times' Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.
Why? Simply put, this objection to the president's healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.
This is so refreshing. A real newspaper doesn't run letters that spread falsehoods and lies-- even if they push the agenda of an owner or editor. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper and so we'll continue to get the sorts of letters like we saw yesterday. Would that this state could enjoy a real paper.
(Update: a few more papers are doing the same.)
No comments:
Post a Comment