WHAT THE MEDIA IS COVERING
A report from the Columbia Journalism Review notes that very little of the reporting on what to do about the health care system is actually about the health care system. Instead, it’s mostly reporting on the chatter about the health care system:
“The Project for Excellence in Journalism, for example, found that 55 percent of coverage of health care has been about the political battles, 16 percent about the protests, and only 8 percent about substantive issues like how the system works now, what will happen if it remains unchanged, and what proposed changes will mean for ordinary people.”
In other words, the press is spending more time on the fighting, rather than on the substance. It’s filler and fluff — that often misleads and distracts from the actual discussion. There’s a tremendous need for thoughtful discussions about healthcare, and it’s a issue where professional journalists could be a huge help. But it’s a lot easier to just focus on the play-by-play commentary, rather than actually adding value.
WHAT THE MEDIA IS NOT COVERING
From the start, TV networks shut out coverage of single-payer as an option for health reform. Despite overwhelming public support for a greater government role in health insurance, pundits were advising us that even Obama’s modest proposal of making private insurance corporations compete with a public insurance fund probably had to be scrapped.
The media could have put an end to the fear mongering about Obama’s plan being a “Trojan horse” for “socialized” medicine if it had provided the public with accurate information on Medicare-for-all and its benefits. Single payer, after all, is seen by many experts as the most effective way of achieving the goals of healthcare reform: Reducing costs while expanding coverage. I didn’t hear that repeated by the MSM. What I heard instead was barely a mention.
The media could have countered the pundits’ insistence that Obama must “compromise” with industry-backed politicians by pointing out that the “public option” is already a serious compromise, given that most citizens and physicians actually favor ”single-payer” — a more comprehensive and progressive option. It has been only in the last few weeks that reporters state that most of those polled want some form of government run health insurance. Annals of Internal Medicine found that 59 percent of physicians also support single-payer. We heard barely a peep about those polls.
It is largely the media’s fault that Obama’s plan (the plan where the Public Option represented “a sliver” of reform) came to be seen as the most liberal position in the debate. A recent study by FAIR found that of hundreds of stories about healthcare in major outlets earlier this year, only five stories included the views of advocates of single-payer — none of which appeared on the TV networks.
The corporate media have also failed to report on the problem of health and insurance industries attempting to influence many legislators with a flood of campaign contributions.
One media watchdog searched Nexis on the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and Time, and on the three nightly network news broadcasts, looking for stories that reported on amounts of health industry money being spent on members of Congress central to health care reform. Of the outlets surveyed, the newspapers were almost the only places that included such information.
And it is a HUGE story. Almost 30 of the key lawmakers who drafted the health care legislation have financial holdings totaling nearly $11 million worth of personal investments in the health care industry. But such reporting, given the volume of health care coverage, was scarce.
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you
hating the people who are being oppressed,
and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
– Malcolm X
For example, we know that Max Baucus has more in campaign contributions from health and insurance industries than any other member of Congress. But news accounts portrayed Baucus’ industry-friendly approach to the healthcare issue—including his dismissal of a single-payer approach and his opposition to a public option—as a reflection of his “more cautious approach,” his “long history of collaborating with Republicans,” or his “pursuit of a centrist compromise” Uh, sure. Similarly, media generally left unmentioned how much Charles (kill Grandma) Grassley has gotten from health industry campaign contributions.
And in case anyone still thinks those contributions don’t dictate legislation, The Center for Responsive Politics analyzed political contribution records of members of the Senate Finance Committee after its vote on two “public option” amendments to its health care bill. Democrats who voted “no” received an average of nearly half a million dollars more from pharmaceutical and health product lobbyists in the last 20 years than Democrats who voted “yes.”
HOW’M I DOIN’?
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that the public gives news organizations low marks for their coverage of health care. News about proposed health care legislation was the most closely followed story for weeks. More than a third (36%) said they followed news about the debate more closely than any other major story, far outpacing mentions of other stories, including the economy. That last tidbit is fascinating to me, since I have heard repeatedly (mostly on MSNBC) that the health care debate is not what most people care about—it’s supposed to be job, jobs, jobs!
But as health care reform continues to dominate public attention and media coverage, most Americans are critical of the way news organizations are explaining key elements of the debate.
“Can we break the machine
that is imposing right-wing radicalism
on the United States?
The scariest part
is that the media is part of that machine.”
– Paul Krugman
More than seven-in-ten said the media has done either a poor (40%) or only fair (32%) job explaining details of the various proposals. Just 21% offer a positive rating of this coverage. A similar percentage say news organizations have done either a poor (37%) or only fair (33%) job explaining the effect the “proposals would have on people like yourself.” These bad poll numbers are good news—at least the public realizes what they are missing.
DISTORTING THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY
Last summer, nothing came close to matching the intensity of coverage of the health care issue. Coverage of the proposed health care legislation was overwhelmingly focused on politics and protests. Those two storylines accounted for about three-quarters of the overall coverage of the subject.
At a town hall meeting in Montana, the President Obama accused TV news of focusing on town hall meetings when “tempers flare” because television “loves a ruckus.” No kidding!
“The biases the media has are much bigger
than conservative or liberal. They’re about getting ratings,
about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.”
– Al Franken
And because of that slant in the coverage, health care reform almost got derailed because of those raucous August town-hall meetings in which Democratic members of Congress were besieged by shouters opposed to change.
But what if our media-created impression of the meetings is wrong? What if the highly publicized screamers represented only a fraction of public opinion? There is an overwhelming case that the electronic media went out of their way to cover the noise and ignored the calmer “boring” encounters at Town Halls, even though the anger reflects a fringe right-wing view, not the view of most Americans.
It’s also clear that the anger that got so much attention largely reflects a fringe right-wing view opposed to all sorts of government programs most Americans support. But little of the civility that characterized so many Town Halls was ever seen on television.
Describing the outburst of anger at Specter’s town hall meeting, e.g., a story said it was “a scene being played out at gatherings across the country, as Americans who are worried and angry about President Barack Obama’s proposals vent while cameras roll.” And it became a media–fulfilling prophesy.
LIBERALS ARE WHINERS, RIGHT-WINGERS ARE A MOVEMENT
A recent article by Eric Boelert in Media Matters pointed out a really amazing analysis of the press. He reminded us that back during the Bush years, there was really no worse crime, at least to the Beltway press, than being “angry.” Serious people simply didn’t conduct themselves that way in American politics. They didn’t let their runaway partisan emotions get the best of them. For elite journalists during the Bush administration, liberal hatred of Bush was the reason that liberals should not be taken seriously– Because they were fueled by hatred. Serious people did not have hatred– they weren’t driven by out-of-control passion.
Now, please compare that media thinking from the Bush era to the Tea Baggers and the ugly free-for-alls they unleashed last summer. The press dismissed Bush’s liberal critics because they were too emotional, too full of “hatred,” and not paying attention to the facts. Sort of like the anti-Obama mini-mob members who hang politicians in effigy, turn town hall forums into fact-free screaming events, arrive with loaded guns, wave swastika posters, and yell out “Heil Hitler”?
Last summer, as unhinged racist rage flowed in the streets, and as the Nazi/Hitler rhetoric grew, anger was suddenly perfectly acceptable. Anger became “authentic.” Instead of being turned off by the displays of passion the way they had been when liberal protesters took to the streets prior to the Iraq war, the media touted the Right –wing mobettes as a “phenomenon” (USA Today) staffed by a “citizen army“ (Bloomberg News).
“The right-wing media is trying to marginalize the peace movement.”
– Janean Garafalo
How come liberal anti-war protesters were shunned by the press, but the mini-mobs were showered with incessant coverage? It’s because when angry — and overwhelmingly white — conservatives protest, they come attached with a direct line to the American psyche. I guess Liberal protesters don’t tell us anything about the mood of America, but angry right-wingers do, huh?
“An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.”
– Bill Moyers
Thank you, Bill Moyers, for all you have done to educate us and explain to us while the rest of the media is an epic fail.
Related posts:
bito
KQµårk 死神
KillgoreTrout
* Americans Elect has officially given up...Time Out for O/T
Caru
BourneID
SueInCa
AdLib
Cher,
Thank you – how true.
The MSM looks only for ratings. Headlines are hyped. Teasers and segues have taken a tabloid turn. The only “news” many people see or hear comes from the non news programs which only focus on celebrity (I won’t bore you with a list).
Uncle Walter has been spinning in his grave, and I doubt he will stop any time soon.
And yes, thank you Bill Moyers. Unfortunately, the folks who should be watching his program are too busy watching Family Guy.
Report comment
A really fine…though disturbing…article.
Report comment
Terrific post, Cher!
This is a troubling reality. It helps that more people are getting their news from the internet but the MSM still sets the topics of conversation…or ignores the topics that don’t suit its agenda.
I fear we must retake our democracy by battling both the status quo politicians AND the MSM which can shape public opinoin against the public’s best interests.
It isn’t going to be easy but the first step is opening people’s eyes to the way things are and spreading skepticism about whatever is promoted by the MSM.
Your article is a great stride in that direction, nicely done!
Report comment
Thank You Cher
Awesome work !
People can’t seem to look away from disasters, scandals and BS.
Is it a gene thing ?
Have you seen NOW on PBS?
I hope they can expand this program.
http://www.pbs.org/now/series/brancaccio.html
Report comment
Thank you, Patsy– NOW is new to me, but I’ll definitely check it out!
Report comment
Patsy,
I watch NOW every week; fantastic, informative program. You are right, it needs to be expanded. Thirty minutes is not enough time.
Report comment
Wow, Cher. What an awesome article.
I have been thinking about the press a lot lately, because I’ve come to the conclusion that the press has a devastating effect on legislation, but it is indirect.
I continue to believe that legislation is a tug of war between what average people really need and what wealthy authoritarians want. I don’t think congress people pay that much attention to the press — unless a story comes out about them. Then they care. Mostly, they listen to what their constituents tell them and what lobbyists pay them to hear. They follow the reports out of the agencies — because those reports are produced by people who want to get it right. Too often, the press gets it wrong.
Where the press does its damage is in elections. And that’s a lot of damage. The press tells us or — as in the case of George Bush — doesn’t tell us who the candidate is. It ushers frauds, shills, and posers into office. It sways public opinion about issues — as your article points out — which also affects elections. The press plays a significant role in determining who makes our laws. And that is how the media affect the laws we get. Media heads are well aware that this is their power. They count on it.
I saw the tea party fracas over the summer as pretty much a failure. The press gave it a lot of time and attention, but it didn’t have an impact on health care. Too many people with real problems were contacting congress. And the damage to health care reform was done by money from the insurance industry. That damage would have been done, tea party protests or no tea party protests (which were funded by insurance). I imagine the decision makers in media thought the coverage would damage the Obama presidency, but the protests were laughable, and most people were laughing at them.
So now the media moguls are attacking the president by demoralizing the left, an approach that seems to be working. By keeping the details of health care obscure, by framing the reform in terms of Team A versus Team B instead of looking at goals and the various strategies that might accomplish those goals, the press has set up a win/lose scenario that keeps people on a roller coaster. Today win, tomorrow lose. It’s crazy making for everyone.
Having worked in publishing, I know there is more to editorial strategy than just making money — because there are many editorial strategies that will make money. There is a deliberate editorial vision, building of an editorial board, surveying readership, mapping out 5- and 10-year plans. When reporting gets as divisive and sensationalist as it is today, it’s not by accident. People are hired to do the work in a certain way. And reporters are chosen because they will follow the guidelines. We have only to look at the handful of excellent reporters to realize what is possible and what is not being done on a large scale.
Well, I’ve gone on too long. This is one of my big issues. The press and election reform. Very closely intwined. Both determine the degree to which we have control over our government. Both must be in good working order if we are to have a government of, for, and by the people. Thanks for a great post, Cher.
Report comment
And excellent comment, Nellie. Very illuminating.
Report comment
Wow. Excellent post Chernynkaya.
The media really has failed in its democratic duty in America. The frusrtating thing is that people buy it – whatever they’re told. Or they at least buy the delibrate frames that determine the way an issue is debated.
It’s like one of my professors used to say, most people are like anesthetized lab mice – cute and fluffy, but totally useless and unaware of their situation.
You only need to see some of the media in other countires to realize how bad it is in the US. Al Jazeera English channel makes a mockery of the CNN et al.
Report comment
Sad but true. I have a lot of intelligent people in my life but they don’t have a clue what’s going on with these political issues. They just aren’t paying attention. For all intents and purposes, they are, as you say, useless and unaware in this context.
Report comment
Cher – this is outstanding! Thank you!
I am in total agreement with this analysis. We sent progressive, pro-reform clergy into some of the more contentious town halls in CA. Every one reported back to us that they – wearing clerical collars – had calmed the meetings at which point the media LEFT. No coverage of their work, no coverage of the calmer discussions that actually led to some good questions and answers – nope, the media left when the fight ended. The FACT the fight ended through calm intervention by people of faith ought to have been NEWS, but it was not.
My organization also lobbies – and we worked the six CA Blue Dogs and turned every one of them. Think THAT got noticed? Nope. In CA-1, Mike Thompson’s district, we were the ONLY group working on him to support the public option. He came out in favor three weeks after our folks weighed in. Think anyone cared? Nope.
I am sick of the media and its disgusting biases. There is a man in Sacramento who works for a cable outlet handling the Capitol news, and he thinks he’s Glenn Beck. He got tossed out of the Press Club events because he’s so damned rude. I think I’m the ONLY person who ever got the better of him, and as a consequence, he won’t talk to me at all. But he’s in a position of authority. He decides what plays. Bah!
The health care issue actually involved some really good serious policy discussions around the nation. Too bad no one knows it unless you were part of the groups. Even the blogosphere was guilty of too much hyperventilating! What bothers me a lot is how little people understand how Congress works, and that just fuels the crazies who take advantage of the ignorance – who ARE ignorant and press their zealotry without having a clue what they’re doing.
Time for some media reform, I’d say. At the turn of the last century and even in the 50s journalism really sucked. “Yellow Dog” journalists suddenly were turned out – what happened? There have been periods of amazing reporting, and periods of total crap. What I do not know is what moved news from crap to solid reporting? If we knew that, maybe we could do it again?
Report comment
Thank you, C’LAdy! And yes, yellow journalism has always been with us, but when I was growing up, William Randolf Hearst was someone we studied in high school as quaint and that kind of journalism was seen as a sad period in America. Now it is the norm.
Hearst got us into the Spanish-American War and so much was written about how the press did that, you’d think we would have learned. HAH!
Report comment
Fantastic post, Cher. The fact is, the media is the determining factor in all these issues. The overwhelming majority of voters (and non voters) do not pay close attention to what is going on. They rely on their favorite newscaster to tell them what happened and how to feel about it — if even that.
The Big Story in this whole thing was not that the health care system is broken and that we are endeavoring to fix it (as it should have been). There was no single Big Story in the mainstream media (how can you do that anyway in a one minute segment?) What we got instead was a whole lot of crises and dramas and screaming and back room deal and promises broken and socialist plots. We got headlines that made our heads spin. We got very little real information — because that doesn’t sell, and that’s what the media cares about now.
I don’t even think it matters any more what the polls come up with. The general public, which only pays a cursory attention to these events, is so lost in the mess by now that they can’t possibly be expected to know what’s true or not any more.
Report comment
Hi, E’cat, you nailed it– THE story is that our system is terrible. Where were all those stories? That wouldn’t even have taken an investigation– just plain reporting.
Report comment
Hi All!!
Sorry to post and run, but I wanted to get this in before I had to leave– which I do now– so that I could at least feel I had accomplished something today.
See you tomorrow!
Report comment