Drudge is linking to a Reuters analysis that illustrates how partisan spin can harden into conventional wisdom.

The article, which was written by Tabassum Zakaria, claims that (as the headline puts it) “Resistance grows to Obama’s bigger government.” At one point, after discussing the absurd claims that Obama is a socialist, Zakaria offers the following characterization, which implicitly reinforces the negative framing of Obama:

Obama came to power on a wave of popular support with a strong record as a social liberal in the U.S. Senate. One of his goals is to redistribute some of the country’s wealth, which appeals to those who say they want action to counter a growing gap between the rich and poor.

The language used (“his goals”) suggests that Obama has openly called for redistribution. As far as I know, however, the sole evidence for that claim is limited to the GOP’s interpretation of Obama’s “spread the wealth around” comment, as Reuters itself acknowledged in its reporting back in October:

The tax question prompted Obama to say he wanted to “spread the wealth around,” a comment that McCain and Republicans have jumped on as a sign that the Democrat would pursue income redistribution policies if elected.

In addition, a transcript of Obama’s conversation with “Joe the Plumber” shows that the meaning of the phrase “spread the wealth around” is relatively ambiguous:

Joe: It seems like you’d be welcome to a flat tax then.

Obama: You know, I would be open to it except for … here’s the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you’d probably … in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who’s … things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

There’s just not enough evidence to support the Reuters language as an objective characterization of Obama’s goals in office.