More he said/she said reporting by the NYT

The NY Times has done it again, missing a great opportunity to provide some real analysis of the recent House vote to cut spending and push toward a government shut down.

In today's story As Republicans See a Mandate on Budget Cuts, Others See Risk, Adam Nagourney and David M. Herszenhorn interview current or former Congressmen and one pollster. This he said/she said kind of reporting is lazy, wasteful and only provides predictable results. I won't blame this entirely on the reporters, as this could have been exactly what the editors assigned. I will take them all to task, however, for not fulfilling their responsibilities as members of the nation's paper of record.

The story begins with an assertion that can pretty much be seen as an attempt to defray the calls of liberal bias from the Foxinistas.

In Congress and in statehouses, Republican lawmakers and governors are claiming a broad mandate from last year’s elections as they embark on an aggressive campaign of cutting government spending and taking on public unions. Their agenda echoes in its ambition what President Obama and Democrats tried after winning office in their own electoral wave in 2008.

This assertion equating the GOP's vote - a thinly veiled attack on the poor - with President Obama's effort to provide health insurance for all Americans is ludicrous at best. The story only supports this with comments from a Republican senator. Well, what do you expect them to say?

How about talking to some political analysts, professors, or even former Congresspersons who have turned their backs on partisanship. If you only talk to people with partisan axes to grind, all you're going to do is get cutting remarks that get the reader no closer to the truth.

That's what I thought what being a newsman was all about, seeking the truth and trying to make sense of big decisions to better inform citizens.