Rex Smith's column "Obamacare? It's complicated," June 24, waxes poetically about the blame he and his profession must absorb when providing clarity on issues.
The real cause for blame is the unbalanced approach that is taken. "Obamacare" has positive and negative aspects. The approach was to ignore the negatives. This does suggest a certain bias, which turns off people.
Mr. Smith shows his bias in his opening sentence when he says "Antonin Scalia ... has projected the notion that nobody in America could be more essential than he is." Mr. Smith also shows a rather haughty bias when he suggests that his readership isn't smart. He says: "if you ask a typical voter to explain what so-called Obamacare does, you'll likely hear something pretty vague," and "reporters usually try to use language that a typical reader can understand."
Most of us comprehend just fine. What's missing is presenting both sides of the issue for readers to consider.
Lastly, Mr. Smith hits upon something that highlights the failure of the media when he says, "Perhaps a president with more political skills ... could have gotten us beyond stumbling over the language of the health care debate."
When and where was the presentation on the pluses and minuses of electing someone with such limited experience to be president? The issue of political skills (and philosophies) might have been discovered much sooner with just a little research and reporting.
J. PETER GIFFORD
Sand Lake