We have a system that encourages me as both a reporter and a blogger, which may or may not be a great idea, journalism-wise, but is how the world works.
I want to try to be non-partisan in my coverage, and usually avoid taking sides on controversies that get readers riled up. Not so much because I worship objectivity for the sake of objectivity, but just because:
- I’m a reporter, not an expert. Who am I to judge?
- To me, it seems boring to read articles by reporters who have a predictable ax to grind.
- I actually change my mind a lot, anyway.
And, let’s face it, I’ve covered the war between brokers and consumer groups over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) exchange navigator, in-person assister, licensed producer, certified application counselor, Web-broker entity, matchmaker, bookie, Snow White witch magic mirror and Millennium Falcon HIX data smuggler programs as hard news.
(And maybe I made up the last four categories of intermediaries, but maybe I saw them in a Federal Register filing.)
In the future, I will try to behave. I will try to write about these programs in a dry, even-handed manner with lots of “he saids,” “she saids,” and “they saids.”
But, today, after reading this fine article about the broker-consumer group navigator conflict by Nicholas Kusnetz, on the Center for Public Integrity website, my reaction is: Argh.
Maybe the whole point of PPACA is to increase my blood pressure.