We all know that the true job of straight reporters is to scold Democrats for ambition, echo hysterical fears about the deficit, and call for "comity" whenever anyone pushes back too hard against fascists.
"Objective" news reporting is defined not by a lack of assumptions or biases, but by a refusal to acknowledge those assumptions & biases. The kind of reporting Haberman & other US political journos do rests on a giant superstructure of unexamined presumptions.
Digging those presumptions up, examining & interrogating them, FEELS like "opinion journalism" to people trained in that milieu. But it's a meaningless dividing line. Why is an unexamined presumption any more "objective" or "neutral" than one consciously chosen?
You can follow @drvox.