As the health care debate roils on in Congress, Americans everywhere continue turning to the media for facts and opinion about the bill currently in the forefront of US politics. But can your favorite news outlets be trusted to talk to you straight about health care reform?

Not necessarily, it would seem.

Perusing the job postings at Double X, Slate's "by women" news site, one comes across an editorial assistant position described thusly: "The position is an open-ended contract position, full-time, without benefits." That's right, no benefits for a full-time Double X employee, despite the fact that in the past the site has published more than a few articles in support of progressive health care reforms.

Double X's parent company, The Washington Post Company, also owns Newsweek, which in July ran a cover story by Ted Kennedy that extolled the merits of health care for all. Kennedy died five weeks later.

Elsewhere, at the left-leaning WNYC, a public and NPR-member radio station broadcasting from Manhattan, a recent hire who wishes to remain anonymous has confirmed that her job, too, comes without health benefits.

Even Gawker, which makes no bones about its distaste for conservative values, is rumored to have weak--or totally nonexistent--health care coverage for its many employees.

The hypocrisy is palpable. Call it the cognitive dissonance of the modern American progressive media outlet. One the one hand, the goal should be to give information you believe in to a deserving public. On the other: How to stay in business in an awful economy if every employee is treated fairly and given great benefits?