In an Aug. 19 Associated Press story about freshman Democrats caught between angry constituents and White House pressure on the health care issue, writers Mike Baker and Bob Lewis use this language to discuss N.C. Sen. Kay Hagan (emphasis added):

Activist groups such as MoveOn.org have publicly denounced skeptical Democratic lawmakers, running ads or threatening to do so against the likes of Hagan, who wrested a seat from Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole — a seat that had been in GOP control since arch conservative Jesse Helms started there in 1973.

Certainly I’m not the first to notice that there seem to be no arch liberals in the U.S. Senate, though several come to mind who should be so described. If Helms was an arch conservative, how can a fair reporter not identify Ted Kennedy or Vermont’s Bernie Sanders as arch liberals?

A 1996 study by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Richter, showed conclusively that there is a bias in terms used by reporters. Regarding the prefix “arch,” here’s what they found:

The prefix ”arch,” applied to people, is generally unfavorable. ”Arch-traitor” and ”arch-villain” are fairly common expressions, but not ”arch-patriot” or ”arch-hero.” Such terms as ”arch-enemy” or ”arch-nemesis” are commonly used, but not ”arch-friend” or ”arch-ally.” The [research] shows that the print media used the terms ”archconservative” and ”arch conservative” more than ”archliberal” and ”arch liberal” (both variations were included in the count) by a ratio of 20 to 1.

And keep in mind that this was nearly 15 years ago, when the media were thought to be much more objective than they are today.

Will David Axelrod get the Cheney treatment?

Remember the hundreds of news stories about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “retained ties” with Halliburton after he took office? Anyone like to place a bet on whether the mainstream media will cover Obama chief advisor David Axelrod’s retained ties with the firm AKPD?

As radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt said on his blog on Aug. 19:

If it was Karl Rove in a similar set of circumstances, the blogs and some in MSM would already be demanding a special prosecutor. There are lots of questions for Mr. Axelrod, the first one being whether the Bloomberg story is accurate. if the answer is “yes,” the second will be: “Have you lawyered up?”

“Pudgy” Gene Nichol and his ad hominem attack

Gene Nichol, director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill, John Edwards’ boondoggle, wrote a column for The News & Observer of Raleigh on Aug. 19 in favor of health-care reform. He maintains that a health clinic in Los Angeles, which drew quite a few people, is proof of the need for reform, not that people just jumped at the chance for some free care.

Not content just to make his point, he had to disparage a U.S. Senator who opposes Obamacare (emphasis added):

As the L.A. clinic was under way, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama made the tour of Sunday talk shows, railing against reform. “We have the best health-care system in the world,” he drawled — and we’re not “going to have people waiting in lines or getting rationed.”

If belittling personal characteristics is fair game for Nichol, I suppose it would be OK for others to him in the future as the “pudgy” or “corpulent” Gene Nichol.

Running interference for Obama health initiative

I’ve pointed out before that the media play defense attorney for Democrats and and liberals prosecuting attorney for Republicans and conservatives. Aug. 19’s rush of news stories romanticizing the idea of “health cooperatives” for the Obama team is a good example.

The Boston Globe reported that “Health co-ops’ fans like cost and care” while CNN, did a more openly rah-rah report with the headline, “Praise from doctors, patients on health cooperatives.”

And then there’s the Associated Press story in the Aug. 19 News & Observer telling us how much people like death panels. Oh, the AP didn’t use that phrase, of course, but the aim of the story, “End-of-life counseling eases last days,” is unmistakable: give some cover to the Obamacare proponents on what Sarah Palin termed “death panels.”

Unlike most mainstream media, liberal commentator Nat Hentoff isn’t fooled by the euphemisms employed by the proponents of saving health-care money by denying care to the costly elderly demographic:

President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of its newspaper, Carolina Journal.