This paragraph just plain pissed me off for its sheer journalistic bias:
Judith Palfrey, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, says family poverty increases many risks for children, including low birth weight, premature delivery, learning problems, asthma and other health problems. But the conservative Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector says the index offers little new information. He says the report doesn't mention that poor children's family incomes are supplemented by programs such as food stamps and housing assistance. "Most of the report is an advertising tool for more government programs and spending, which are pretty ineffective in increasing child well-being," he says.
So you have this article, written during the worst recession and unemployment since the 1930's, about how more and more children are falling into poverty and you have a quote from a leading pediatrician that this is a BAD thing.
But holy shit printing a story like that would not be BALANCED! Call up the Heritage Foundation and talk to the guy "dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry" (really, and there are still some people who think I use "fuck" too much while blogging) for a quote about how these people aren't really poor and these children aren't really better off with food and housing assistance because ick those are government programs. A reminder that what Driftglass says in our podcast is true: moving to the "center" and "balance" ALWAYS means a move away from common sense truth towards right-wing ideology. Always.
Really, Liz Szabo, you should be hauled out onto the carpet for that paragraph alone. PS If Obama gets a second term I'm working on nothing but campaign finance and media reform.
Nothing. else. matters.