Politico Stealth Edits Error-Filled Hit Piece On GOP Spending Bill 

Last month’s news that the federal government spent $30 million on subscriptions to Politico since 2015 drew outrage as a questionable use of taxpayer dollars. But numbers alone do not begin to describe the full extent of this waste of money — that requires examining the work itself. Politico’s “journalism” leaves much to be desired.

Article’s Erroneous Premise

Last week, the outlet published an article regarding claims by House Republicans that lawmakers could find $88 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years by eliminating waste and fraud. The title described the strategy as a “rosy Medicaid savings plan,” and said “it’s hard to see how the numbers add up.” The basis of its logic came from last week’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on high-risk programs that noted $31 billion in improper payments from Medicaid in fiscal year 2024, less than the $88 billion in annual savings the House budget resolution contemplates.

But the GAO report also contained other facts that appeared nowhere in the article. First, it noted that the $31 billion in improper payments was due largely to pandemic-era flexibilities given to state Medicaid programs. Second, GAO specifically stated that “the improper payment rate is likely to increase” as those flexibilities ended. Third, GAO said the improper payment rate in fiscal year 2022 (15.6 percent) was nearly three times as high as that in fiscal year 2024 (5.09 percent). If the improper payment rate returned to that level, then the amount of improper payments would likely exceed the $88 billion in Medicaid savings included in the House-passed budget, negating the article’s main thesis.

I emailed the reporter in question, Robert King, to ask him about these noteworthy omissions. King, who heads up Politico’s coverage of Medicare and Medicaid, sent a terse reply shortly thereafter to say that “we updated the story” to reflect GAO’s expectation that the improper payment rate would rise.

Protecting a Reporter’s Ego Trumps Readers’ Right to Know

Except Politico didn’t update the story — it rewrote the story. It added language that “even if [improper payments] tripled, Republicans would need to catch almost every dollar … to reach their savings target” — moving the goalposts from the article’s original premise. And it disclosed none of this to readers, failing to add a note that the story was updated, much less that its premise was changed.

We all make mistakes, but King’s was particularly egregious. The three data points he omitted from the GAO report that argued against his premise came in the exact same paragraph as the $31 billion figure he based his article around. For this reason, I asked him a simple question: Had he actually read the GAO report before basing a story on it? He declined to answer. Likewise, a spokesman for Politico did not respond to multiple requests for comment, including a question about how such a thinly sourced article ever got approved for publication.

Having made my own share of mistakes in my writing, I can sympathize with King’s plight, but Politico cannot credibly claim to “shin[e] a light on the work of … government” without applying the same standards to itself. If a government agency rewrote or whitewashed a report to protect a government official’s error, Politico would call that what it is: corruption. In this case, Politico committed the cardinal sin of journalism: prioritizing the egos of its staff over readers’ right to know all relevant material regarding a story, including, and especially, any omissions or errors.

Perhaps the federal government, to say nothing of Politico’s private sector subscribers to its Pro service, should demand refunds of its pricey subscriptions because a publication that discusses “our commitment to transparency [and] accountability” showed neither in this instance. And an outlet that claims it can sell subscriptions because “it makes [clients] better at their jobs” may want to spend more time ensuring its staff get better at theirs — starting with a 101 on journalistic integrity.