The Washington Post editorial page last Friday said it would be “a shame” if President Bush failed to sign Republican-sponsored revisions to the Freedom of Information Act passed by Congress. The Post “urged” Bush to reconsider, and claimed that Bush’s “apparent unwillingness to embrace openness taints this particular win.” The bill would have become law regardless of Bush’s signature, but the president did the noble thing yesterday and put his John Hancock on it.

I applaud him for doing so — and I’d expect newspapers that criticized Bush to do the same. Today’s Washington Post, however, nearly left out any mention of it. A short, 188-word Associated Press article appears along with a few other “Nation in Brief” stories on Page A12, the last page of the A section. The Post’s editorial writers used more words (398) to attack Bush for not signing it than the news team did in covering what the legislation will actually do now that it’s a law.

It’s no wonder Bush was holding the legislation for so long without putting his signature on it. Given the Post’s handling of this story, I don’t blame him.