New York Times reporter Robert Pear does solid work on the health care beat, but this passage betrays his sympathies in the debate over expanding government financing of health care insurance for children:

The fight over a popular health insurance program for children is intensifying, with President Bush now leading efforts to block a major expansion of the program, which is a top priority for Congressional Democrats.

The seemingly uncontroversial goal of insuring more children has become the focus of an ideological battle between the White House and Congress.

Here, “[s]eemingly uncontroversial” is code for “only unreasonable ideologues oppose it.” I don’t agree with the White House position on this, but it’s not outside the boundaries of mainstream political debate:

White House objections to the Democratic plan are “philosophical and ideological,” said Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy. In an interview, he said the Democrats’ proposal would move the nation toward “a single-payer health care system with rationing and price controls.”

The key is the distinction between means and ends. The goal of covering all children is almost universally shared, but liberals and conservatives disagree over whether the government should finance health insurance for uninsured children, particularly for those over the poverty line. Instead of acknowledging this philosophical disagreement over means, Pear’s lede suggests that the White House opposes the goal of more coverage for children.

I don’t agree with simplistic media bias claims, but this is an example of how liberal bias does creep in to reporting — reporters often blur the distinction between opposition to government provision of services or funding and opposition to the goals of the programs.