In an article called “Spin of the Times: Bias cloaked as Front-Page News,” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit complains that the New York Times runs news stories that are biased in favor of “Democrats and leftish ideas.”

His example of this is a recent article called “In Hopeful Sign, Health Spending Is Flattening Out.” The article looks at the fact that health care costs in the U.S. have risen much less sharply than expected in the past couple of years, which of course is good news to anyone who cares about, you know, American citizens and the American economy.

Is the story biased toward “Democrats and leftish ideas”? Here’s the weird part — Reynolds does not show that the article misrepresents or leaves out facts to make the article appear to be favorable to the Left. He quotes the article itself to argue that some of the cost slowdown is because of the recession, not because “Obamacare” is working.

The article is full of caveats and to-be-sures like this: “The growth rate mostly slowed as millions of Americans lost insurance coverage along with their jobs. Worried about job security, others may have feared taking time off work for doctor’s visits or surgical procedures, or skipped nonurgent care when money was tight.” Or this: “Some experts caution that there remains too little data to determine whether the current slowdown will become permanent, or whether it is merely a blip caused by the economy’s weakness.”

But, we’re told, “[M]any other health experts say that there is just enough data to start detecting trends — even if the numbers remain murky, and the vast complexity of the national health care market puts definitive answers out of reach.”

At this point, an editor might have spiked the story, commenting that all we’ve got are dueling experts who admit that they don’t really know what’s going on amid their “murky” numbers.

But the story is that health care costs in the U.S. have risen much less sharply than expected in the past couple of years. This is from the article:

In 2009 and 2010, total nationwide health care spending grew less than 4 percent per year, the slowest annual pace in more than five decades, according to the latest numbers from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. After years of taking up a growing share of economic activity, health spending held steady in 2010, at 17.9 percent of the gross domestic product….

… The implications of a bend in the cost curve would be enormous. Policy makers on both sides of the aisle see rising health care costs as the central threat to household budgets and the country’s fiscal health. If the growth in Medicare were to come down to a rate of only 1 percentage point a year faster than the economy’s growth, the projected long-term deficit would fall by more than one-third.

That’s a significant bit of data. Just because the data don’t clearly show why it’s happening doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

If you read the New York Times story — which Reynolds doesn’t link to, of course — you see that it provides a number of possible reasons for the slowdown in cost increase, some of which reflect well on the Obama Administration and some of which do not. And it provides the “bad for Obama” possible reasons first, before going on to the “maybe Obama’s policies have something to do with this” reasons. Reynolds quotes those “bad for Obama” reasons with approval and then complains the article is biased because … well, why? Because it then goes on to provide some “good for Obama” reasons as well?

What Reynolds is saying is that this bit of news must be suppressed until someone can show decisively that it’s really a bad thing that is all Obama’s fault.

And what makes this even more hysterical is that Reynold’s piece is published in the New York Post, one of the nation’s foremost purveyors of pure, old-fashioned yellow journalism. For example, in today’s Post there’s an article by a guy named Glenn Reynolds with an alarming headline about spin and bias at the New York Times, but if you read the article it’s just a highly biased piece about a Times article that really isn’t biased at all. Reynolds just doesn’t like it because it isn’t anti-Obama enough for his taste.