In reading and watching much of the coverage this week about the ongoing debate and negotiations over Obama's proposed health care reform, I keep coming back to an essay Cenk Uygur posted over at Huffington Post earlier this week, which highlighted the glaring lack of context in the media's health coverage. And specifically, its coverage of the role conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats are playing as they resist the White House's health care reform.

The point Uygur made was the press almost never includes any context about the Blue Dogs or hints at possible political motivation in their decision to oppose the White House. From the media's perspective, Blue Dogs are acting solely out of their deep concern for fiscal spending, and nothing more. It's a world where lobbyists, special interest and ulterior motives do not exist, and where reporters simply type up whatever politicians say without ever (ever!) providing fuller political context.

Uygur has his doubts though, about the Blue Dogs:

Did it not occur to these reporters that some of these so-called conservative or centrist Democrats might be against this reform effort because their primary financial benefactors are the same healthcare companies that are desperate to kill this bill? Would it not have given the reader a better and more informed perspective to at least mention this possibility? Or do you want to just take these politicians at their word?

A perfect example of the media's context-free reporting appears in this WSJ news article about Rep. Mike Ross (“A 'Blue Dog' Has His Day”), which is blissfully (obediently) context-free:

The health standoff is the most dramatic show of force so far by Democratic moderates. On the climate bill, Democratic leaders picked off opponents by making individual promises. The Blue Dogs, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, are determined to stick together this time.

There are 51 Blue Dogs in the full House, Mr. Ross pointed out, more than enough to kill the health bill if they join the Republicans.

The Journal article stresses that Ross really, really wants to vote for health care reform, and hints the other Blue Dogs do, too. It's just that they're consciences won't be clean if they support such costly legislation. That may well be true. But there's very likely another side to the story, and it'd be nice if the press started covering it, too.