In the past week, CNN's Elizabeth Cohen quoted a right-of-center source who badmouthed the evidence-based medicine piece of the health care piece of the stimulus legislation, claiming that it would lead to the federales' restricting treatment options. Trudy Lieberman, at the Columbia Journalism Review, is all over this one, arguing for clearer identification of commentators' perspectives. Personally, I thought the right-of-center source was discredited by Cohen in the piece, and the end-of-segment banter with the anchor is something I think most people usually discount. I don't know if the 2 minute 15 second piece on the CNN website is missing something that was broadcast, but it didn't seem as bad as the CJR piece made it out to be. For me, the larger question is: why spend so much time in a short piece on an opinion that is going to be discredited, when more time could be devoted to explication of a complex tidbit of health care policy?