More Journalistic Impropriety

You should read the article first.

I think this is absolutely disgusting. First of all, this is hardly a big enough deal to write a story about. Secondly, it's one of the most obvious cases of a journalist losing impartiality that I've ever seen outside of local news outlets' treatment of local sporting events (with local teams playing out-of-towners).

But recent accounts of the episode have omitted key details that suggest there was more truth in the essence of Clinton's tale than her critics, and even her presidential campaign, have acknowledged.

I really think it's inappropriate for a journalist to be speaking about how much "truth" (which is obviously used metaphorically here) is in "the essence" of something. I read and re-read this section to determine whether or not they were quoting a Clinton campaign spokesperson. They weren't.

And again at the close of the article:

But according to Casto's account, Bachtel's medical tragedy began with circumstances very close to the essence of Clinton's now-abandoned account: the lack of insurance created a $100 barrier to needed medical attention close to home.

Again, the writer is talking about "the essence" of the story. And of course the writer decides what the essence of it is. The writer decided that "the essence" of the story is not that the woman was turned away from a hospital where she had never been before (presumably or impliedly at the ER) because she wouldn't pay up front. And that she tried again and was turned away again. No, of course not.

It's this kind of bullshit that makes me understand why we need Fox News.