Lieberman looks at the journalistic ethics of coverage of the health care debate and at the parallels with the Clinton health care debate debacle.

Very good discussion of the lack of accurate and in-depth coverage of the health law debate, including one reason why the debate is limited. Still, the mention of prevention references a researcher who confuses the discussion by talking about hypertension as a "condition" rather than a disease, muddying the water, and confuses the definitions of primary and secondary prevention.

You would not expect less than quality from this publication. Their call for the print media to do a better job on covering what health care bills that will be coming is most fair and totally "Accurate".

This is quality journalism. It is a critique of the coverage of health care reform and how the same mistakes of 1993 are being repeated now.This article goes beyond the usual suspects and identifies key figures in health care analysis. It also talks about health care issues and not just the sausage making process of how legislation gets done. It identifies how most reporting has used a similar meme to tell the story i.e. that this time things are different than 1993. But the people that the author interviews say it's not different at all.