Early this month, I looked at a couple of Wall Street Journal stories that emphasized the negative in the Affordable Care Act rollout and wondered whether the WSJ healthcare coverage wasn't Foxifying a bit. One emphasized the premium hike for a relatively small subset of people subject to the individual mandate (and without employer-provided insurance), and one aggregated and exaggerated a series of "blows" to the law, most of which were old news.
Healthcare reporter Louise Radnofsky was on both bylines. She's a good reporter. Her coverage over time has been balanced.*
But as the rollout of the ACA exchanges looms, I wonder whether WSJ news editing is tilting the emphasis on ACA coverage generally [ [UPDATE: I have spoken to someone at the Journal, whose word I trust,
who assures me that editors area not imposing a political agenda on
reporters. I regret speculating about motive without information.].
Today, Project Millennial blogger Mike Miesen flags another questionable WSJ framing of ACA news that had also registered with me this morning: