PressEthic

Legislation in Congress mandatingthe construction of a 700 mile border wall is supported by a majority of Americans, easily passed both houses of Congress and is poised to get the signature of President Bush.

Despite all that, the Washington Post managed to write 1,385 words without quoting a single supporter or articulating a single argument that favors the fence.

The article begins as follows:

CALEXICO, Calif. -- Legislation passed by Congress mandating the fencing of 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico has sparked opposition from an array of land managers, businesspeople, law enforcement officials, environmentalists and U.S. Border Patrol agents as a one-size-fits-all policy response to the nettlesome task of securing the nation's borders.

Critics said the fence does not take into account the extraordinarily varied geography of the 2,000-mile-long border, which cuts through Mexican and U.S. cities separated by a sidewalk, vast scrubland and deserts, rivers, irrigation canals and miles of mountainous terrain. They also say it seems to ignore advances in border security that don't involve construction of a 15-foot-high double fence and to play down what are expected to be significant costs to maintain the new barrier.

And, they say, the estimated $2 billion price tag and the mandate that it be completed by 2008 overlook 10 years of legal and logistical difficulties the federal government has faced to finish a comparatively tiny fence of 14 miles dividing San Diego and Tijuana.

Click through to confirm that the criticisms keep coming throughout.

Or take Mickey Kaus' word for it:

John Pomfret's Oct. 10 WaPo article, "Fence Meets Wall of Skepticism," has gotten a good deal of Web attention. Pomfret makes no attempt at balance--it's a straight "let's let fence critics piss all over the idea" piece. That's fine--advocacy journalism is finding a home in the MSM as newspapers try to woo a generation of younger readers! I must have missed the equally provocative story in which WaPo let one of its conservative reporters make the case for the fence--but never mind.

He proceeds to offer the very pro-border wall arguments that should've been included in the Post story.

Of course, I prefer this column.

Too bad Washington Post readers won't be exposed to those arguments.