Covering the Senate

Compare these two stories, both from Thursday's Washington Post. The first is Shailagh Murray's front page piece on the defeat of the Webb Amendment:

Senate Republicans yesterday rejected a bipartisan proposal to lengthen the home leaves of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, derailing a measure that war opponents viewed as one of the best chances to force President Bush to accelerate a redeployment of forces.

The proposal, sponsored by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage -- a tally that was virtually identical to a previous vote in July. A last-minute campaign by the Defense Department and the White House to kill the measure won over Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), an influential voice on defense policy who had voted with Webb and Hagel in July.

Now this is from Jonathan Weisman's page five piece on the defeat of a bill to restore habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees:

A Republican filibuster in the Senate yesterday shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress's difficulty with terrorism issues.

The 56 to 43 vote fell short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote on the amendment to the Senate's annual defense policy bill. But the measure did garner the support of six Republicans, a small victory for its supporters. A similar proposal drew 48 "yea" votes last September.

Which is clearer?

Obviously the second, which states correctly that the Republicans filibustered the bill, thereby preventing it from passing despite majority support.

The first story is needlessly confusing. It never once uses the word "filibuster" and it states that the bill "failed on a 56 to 44 vote," which to someone not paying careful attention might suggest "nays" outnumbered "yeas" by 12 votes. And while it does say that "60 votes were needed for passage," it doesn't say why 60 votes were needed, i.e., that Republicans filibustered the bill. Again, the casual observer might mistakenly conclude that 60 votes are always needed in the Senate.

Stories like this need to use the word "filibuster" and need to explain that a minority of Senators are choosing to block a bill that a majority support. If those two critical points are not mentioned, it's journalistic malpractice pure and simple.