The story then begins: “Amid objections from the National Right to Work Foundation, the Chafee administration has signed an agreement that sets the stage for a vote within the next two months on the drive to unionize upward of 580 private contractors who provide state-subsidized childcare in their homes.”

Wow, the opposition was cited three times on the front page, there must be some serious conflict with these 600 low-wage workers organizing for better wages. Let’s go to the jump page (you know, the one that typically has ads paid for by big box stores) to see what the controversy is all about.

Oh, here it is:

In a related development, a local research group made public an opinion letter from a lawyer associated with the National Right to Work Foundation, which has taken the lead in challenging the unionization of childcare workers elsewhere in the country.

“Nothing imminent, but we are keeping an eye on Rhode Island,’’ said foundation spokesman Anthony Riedel in an interview earlier this week.

And I’m sure they’ll be in touch with the Providence Journal if and when anything comes to mind; and that the ProJo will in turn let us know what author of said opinion letter thinks. Worth noting, I think that the newspaper’s rhetoric is more fiery than the advocacy group’s.

But wait, there’s more. Former pro athlete and union member Mike Stenhouse also sent an email. He says he’s not considering legal action but he is considering contacting the soon-to-be-organized employees to let them know he thinks this is a bad idea for them, and that their free speech is being limited.

I hope, for the ProJo’s sake, that it didn’t have to stop the presses to squeeze in that scoop. Because after all, the guys who operate the machinery are all in unions and they get paid whether that critical bit of information gets delivered to news-reading Rhode Island in a timely fashion or not.

This morning’s piece about a bill that would let child care workers bargain collectively with existing public sector unions carried the headline: “Another R.I. fiasco.”  This is a stark contrast to the paper of record’s May 6 editorial on the similar subject that was headlined “Early childhood potential.”

The headline isn’t the only difference in the two pieces. The more recent piece is just anti-organized labor hyperbole while the one from May 6 was a measured endorsement of the concept.

Today’s op/ed suggests, in the first sentence, that people who support this legislation don’t love the Ocean State.  The May 6 editorial had a very different opening: “For several years, Rhode Island Kids Count has provided invaluable data on the state’s children.”

Hyperbole is one thing. Misinformation is something else entirely. “It can only make government more costly and intrusive, fueling the flight of the state’s educated people in their prime earning years,” according to the Providence Journal as of today.

But actual economic analysis shows there is likely to be much economic benefit. This 2003 study funded by the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce states: “for every public and private dollar spent on regulated child care, $1.75 is returned to the Rhode Island economy – a net positive return that almost doubles investments.”

It’s well worth noting that the SEIU crafted a more intellectually honest argument for the bill than today’s Projo op/ed did to oppose it. Watch this video:

But if the ProJo editorial board needed any evidence whatsoever that this bill can do more than simply spend money it didn’t have to look any farther than its own archives. Ostensibly, it was even written – or at the very least read – by the very same group of thinker/writers, minus the recently retired Bob Whitcomb.

The video pretty much communicates what the paper of record believed last month when it wrote, “…Rhode Island’s child-care workers could use an upgrade. Most earn fairly low pay, making it difficult to further their education.”

The Journal can both believe and publish what it wishes, and a center right editorial page may even benefit a center left constituency. But progressive viewpoints are not only largely absent from the paper of record’s editorial voice, they are often misrepresented. That may benefit my business model, but it isn’t very good for Rhode Island news consumers.

This post has been updated to fix an error. The post originally said the first editorial endorsed the bill. It did not.