In an otherwise excellent piece on the internal dynamics of the Kerry campaign, Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post twice slips up by using the same loaded word -- "rant." This serves to insert VandeHei's point of view where it doesn't belong -- smack in the middle of a purported news story.
In the sixth paragraph, VandeHei writes, "Kerry and his advisers seek to blend a traditional populist rant against big corporations with policies designed, in part, to placate business -- such as his across-the-board tax break for corporations." (Emphasis added.)
Further down, he writes, "[Kerry adviser Bob] Shrum's influence permeates Kerry's every speech, from his rant against special interests to his spirited appeal for more participation among younger Americans." (Emphasis added.)
One might expect to hear a Bush campaign spokesman, or a PR man for a league of tycoons -- or even a reporter writing an opinion column -- use the word "rant" to characterize a Kerry speech. But in a straight news piece, the word sticks out as a blatantly editorial judgment about a Kerry stance the senator obviously considers important.
VandeHei isn't the first to resort to a pejorative word to describe Kerry's comments on the issue. Back on February 29, David Halbfinger of the New York Times in a "Week in Review" piece referred to Kerry's "rant against the 'special interests.'" But "Week in Review" is specifically a home for commentary and opinion. The news pages of the Post, supposedly, are not.
