Here's how a front-page news article in today's New York Times describes President Bush's position on campaign finance legislation: "while President Bush has left open the door to signing any campaign finance bill that 'improves the system,' he sidestepped a question last week about whether he could support a bill banning soft money. The bill that passed the Senate today ignores many of the principles Mr. Bush said he wanted to see in the legislation, and the White House had no immediate comment on what the president was likely to do."
Fair enough. Now, here's how a "news analysis" article in the national section of today's New York Times describes the president's position: "while the president has suggested that he would sign the bill sponsored by Senator John McCain of Arizona and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Mr. Gilmore finds himself on the other side, condemning the measure."
What's a reader to do? One Times report says the McCain-Feingold bill ignores the president's principles and that the White House isn't commenting on what the president will do. The other Times report says the president has suggested he would sign the bill and that someone condemning the bill is on another side than the side the president is on. Aren't there any editors at the Times who read these articles before they go in and try to catch these contradictions?
If what's going on is that the president is sending mixed signals on the bill, one well-accepted journalistic approach would be for the Times to report that in both articles. Instead, the Times approach seems to be to print two different articles, one saying that the president is sending negative signals and another saying the president is sending positive signals.