More signs of progress?

Are we approaching a critical mass of reporters understanding that the media has done a terrible job of covering the substance of the health care debate?

Earlier, I noted that MSNBC's coverage today is far better than Friday's, that the New York Times has produced a "primer" on health care, and that even Mark Halperin thinks the media is dropping the ball in focusing on yelling at town halls rather than on the actual issue.

In a just-completed Washington Post online discussion, Post reporter Alex MacGillis directly and forcefully debunked the "death panel" nonsense, wrote "I agree wholeheartedly that reporters too often rely on the 'he said/she said' model and shy from stating what they know to be the truth on an issue," and agreed that the media is partially responsible for people holding false beliefs about health care reform.

Even Howard Kurtz wrote of Sarah Palin's "death panels" lie: "there is a point where the media should say a politician is wrong, and this is the point."

And Friday night, Time's Michael Scherer denounced that day's cable news coverage of health care:

the word "violence" was thrown around like candy for the masses, who are apparently torn between wanting more blood and wanting more outrage over the blood. Meanwhile, the substance of any policy discussion--like President Obama's quiet decision to deal away Medicare bargaining power for prescription drugs--is lost.

What else is out there?  Feel free to post other examples of reporters explaining or criticizing the flaws in health care coverage in the comments.