Mr Hubbard said Mr Bush would also seek to work with Democrats to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform - political code for reform that includes work permits and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the US.

Here, the reporters do their readers a service. Those who aren't political junkies might not understand what "comprehensive" means in the context of immigration reform. The authors expose the reality behind the buzzwords. Good for them.

But why can't they do the same thing on the subject of the article?

Imagine this, with my additions in brackets:

He said Mr Bush wanted to ensure there were the right "incentives to invest" in alternative fuels[, political code for billions in taxpayer subsidies directed largely at multinational ag corporations like Archer Daniels Midland.]

OK, maybe they'd have to tone it down. Point is, why do they let this code of "bold energy initiative" and "incentives to invest" pass by unremarked and unedited? Why not call it what it is?

Reporters have an obligation to start doing this before voters wake up and find out that their bold, hopeful energy vision has translated to nothing more than a fatter bottom line for ADM and a bigger dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.