'Ram it through': Media adopt GOP characterization of majority vote

In the past week, media figures have routinely referred to a potential effort to pass a health care reform bill with a majority vote as an effort to "ram," "jam," or "cram" a bill through Congress, a characterization pushed by Republican politicians. The reconciliation process, which enables the Senate to pass legislation with 51 votes, has been used repeatedly by Republicans, including to pass major changes to health care laws. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Feb 26, 2010 - 4:19 PM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Feb 28, 2010 - 11:55 AM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.3
by Dwight Rousu - Mar. 1, 2010

This is journalism that reports on bad journalism, and is thus a bit of an inverse for this category of "bad journalism" on news trust. The allegations here across a spectrum of news sources shows an uncritical adoption of a partisan categorization of reconciliation.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Fabrice Florin
2.8
by Fabrice Florin - Mar. 1, 2010

This research piece from Media Matters inaccurately implies that the news media are adopting Republican talking points when referring to the reconciliation plan discussed by Democrats. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The fact that the word 'ramming' is used by both GOP representatives and many news outlets doesn't mean that the media are adopiting the Republican party line. It only means that they are both using the English language, and that 'ramming' is a reasonably descriptive word to describe this last-resort political tactic. The rest of the article provides an interesting roundup of quotes and observations, but it is presented from a partisan perspective, which makes it less valuable to me than a more impartial ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 3 reviews (36% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.7
Sourcing
4.3
Style
3.0
Context
3.7
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.3
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!