Howard Kurtz, today:

New York City: I realize you're not the Ombudsman, but you do call yourself “Media Critic,” so hoping you'll comment on this one: The Post used a lot of breathless language a while back to announce the scandal over the AIG bonuses was “increasingly blowing back on Obama” and “threatening to derail” the young administration's agenda. But how in the heck does the Post know the Obama White House is paying a stiff political price? The reporters don't (can't?) actually point to anything to suggest “the public” is taking its anger out on Obama, or that the public has decided he's to blame for Wall Street's greed. (Greed the president has, in fact, denounced.). There's no polling data cited, and the article doesn't offer up even anecdotal evidence to suggest Obama's entire agenda is now threatened. I suppose it's just a coincidence that the RNC thinks the exact same thing, right? So... why does this article appear as a “news” story and not in the op-ed section?

LINK: Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital (Post, March 17)

Howard Kurtz: I didn't think the story was opinionated or served up RNC talking points by any means. But I do think it got out a little bit ahead of the available facts.

Anyone want to guess what “I didn't think the story was opinionated ... I do think it got out a little bit ahead of the available facts” means?