Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hold signs during an event on healthcare September 13, 2017 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Sen. Sanders held an event to introduce the Medicare for All Act of 2017. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
USA Today Under Fire for Fact-Checking Trump's "Lie-Filled" Medicare for All Op-Ed Only After Publishing It
"Seems like a...sequencing problem," noted one critic as another said newspaper should have upheld journalistic standards by telling president to "go pound sand" over rampant falsehoods
Reputable news publications tend to fact-check articles before they are published and blasted out to millions of Americans via social media, but USA Today is under fire for waiting a full day after it posted President Donald Trump's falsehood-riddled attack on Medicare for All to publish a refutation of the outright lies that filled nearly every single sentence of the president's piece.
"First we publish it, brimming with dubious claims and falsehoods. Then we share the juiciest bits on social. Then we fact check it. Then we promote the fact-check to critics and fans. Seems like a... sequencing problem," Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University, noted on Twitter after the newspaper on Thursday published its approximately 2,000-word rebuttal of Trump's 800-word op-ed.
USA Today's belated fact-check of Trump's piece--conducted by FactCheck.org and published in USA Today's "news" section--came after the publication faced intense backlash for posting what was characterized as little more than a White House press release that did not withstand even the most basic scrutiny from healthcare experts, journalists, lawmakers, and progressive analysts.
"'Tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand' is basically Free Press 101."
--Ryan Cooper, The Week
By publishing a fact-check 24 hours after Trump's op-ed appeared, critics argued, USA Today effectively conceded that either Trump's op-ed was not fact-checked before it reached the newspaper's massive daily readership and its millions of social media followers--or it was fact-checked and the paper's editorial team "knowingly published lies."
In response to widespread criticism of his decision to publish Trump's op-ed, Bill Sternberg--editor of USA Today's opinion page--insisted in a note appended to the very bottom of Trump's article that the president's piece was fact-checked just like all other opinion pieces the paper publishes online and in print on a daily basis.
"[W]e check factual assertions while allowing authors wide leeway to express their opinions," Sternberg said.
But the fact-check USA Today posted a day after it handed Trump a megaphone to spout flagrant lies shows that almost every "assertion" the president made in his piece is demonstrably false.
Here is FactCheck.org's broad summary of its findings:
- The president claimed that the Medicare for All Act, one of several Democratic-sponsored health insurance bills, would "cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years." That's an estimate of the cost to the federal government, but that ignores the offsetting savings in healthcare costs for individuals, employers, and state governments.
- Trump wrote that the Medicare for All Act would "take away benefits" from seniors. The plan calls for adding new benefits to Medicare coverage, including dental, vision and hearing aids, and eliminating deductibles.
- The president overstates the consensus when he says "we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around" the Medicare for All Act. There are competing bills that would expand insurance coverage by increasing access to Medicare or Medicaid.
- Trump claimed he kept his campaign promise to "protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions." But the administration supports a lawsuit that it says would lead to the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's pre-existing condition protections.
- The president also said he has kept his promise to "create new health insurance options" to lower premiums, "and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down." But not all premiums are "coming down."
As several journalists noted after Trump's op-ed appeared on Wednesday, the outlet had absolutely no obligation to publish the president's lie-filled piece--which, as Eli Pariser of Upworthy observed, will likely have the unfortunate consequence of harming the credibility of USA Today journalists who work tirelessly to get their facts straight.
In response to one commentator who expressed "sympathy" for USA Today's position, The Week's Ryan Cooper noted that a fundamental tenet of press freedom is the ability to "tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand."
"Throughout the 2016 campaign and continuing into the president's recent flood of rallies, news outlets have debated whether to run Trump's speeches live, given that he is prone to spout outright falsehoods with abandon," Pete Vernon of Columbia Journalism Review noted in a detailed assessment of USA Today's decision to publish the president's op-ed.
"Responsible organizations have concluded that there are reasonable steps that can be taken to contextualize the false claims," Vernon added. "But in providing a print platform for similarly mendacious puffery of the president's own actions, USA Today chose to ignore the lessons that should have been learned by now, and it deserves the scrutiny and criticism it has received."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Reputable news publications tend to fact-check articles before they are published and blasted out to millions of Americans via social media, but USA Today is under fire for waiting a full day after it posted President Donald Trump's falsehood-riddled attack on Medicare for All to publish a refutation of the outright lies that filled nearly every single sentence of the president's piece.
"First we publish it, brimming with dubious claims and falsehoods. Then we share the juiciest bits on social. Then we fact check it. Then we promote the fact-check to critics and fans. Seems like a... sequencing problem," Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University, noted on Twitter after the newspaper on Thursday published its approximately 2,000-word rebuttal of Trump's 800-word op-ed.
USA Today's belated fact-check of Trump's piece--conducted by FactCheck.org and published in USA Today's "news" section--came after the publication faced intense backlash for posting what was characterized as little more than a White House press release that did not withstand even the most basic scrutiny from healthcare experts, journalists, lawmakers, and progressive analysts.
"'Tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand' is basically Free Press 101."
--Ryan Cooper, The Week
By publishing a fact-check 24 hours after Trump's op-ed appeared, critics argued, USA Today effectively conceded that either Trump's op-ed was not fact-checked before it reached the newspaper's massive daily readership and its millions of social media followers--or it was fact-checked and the paper's editorial team "knowingly published lies."
In response to widespread criticism of his decision to publish Trump's op-ed, Bill Sternberg--editor of USA Today's opinion page--insisted in a note appended to the very bottom of Trump's article that the president's piece was fact-checked just like all other opinion pieces the paper publishes online and in print on a daily basis.
"[W]e check factual assertions while allowing authors wide leeway to express their opinions," Sternberg said.
But the fact-check USA Today posted a day after it handed Trump a megaphone to spout flagrant lies shows that almost every "assertion" the president made in his piece is demonstrably false.
Here is FactCheck.org's broad summary of its findings:
- The president claimed that the Medicare for All Act, one of several Democratic-sponsored health insurance bills, would "cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years." That's an estimate of the cost to the federal government, but that ignores the offsetting savings in healthcare costs for individuals, employers, and state governments.
- Trump wrote that the Medicare for All Act would "take away benefits" from seniors. The plan calls for adding new benefits to Medicare coverage, including dental, vision and hearing aids, and eliminating deductibles.
- The president overstates the consensus when he says "we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around" the Medicare for All Act. There are competing bills that would expand insurance coverage by increasing access to Medicare or Medicaid.
- Trump claimed he kept his campaign promise to "protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions." But the administration supports a lawsuit that it says would lead to the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's pre-existing condition protections.
- The president also said he has kept his promise to "create new health insurance options" to lower premiums, "and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down." But not all premiums are "coming down."
As several journalists noted after Trump's op-ed appeared on Wednesday, the outlet had absolutely no obligation to publish the president's lie-filled piece--which, as Eli Pariser of Upworthy observed, will likely have the unfortunate consequence of harming the credibility of USA Today journalists who work tirelessly to get their facts straight.
In response to one commentator who expressed "sympathy" for USA Today's position, The Week's Ryan Cooper noted that a fundamental tenet of press freedom is the ability to "tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand."
"Throughout the 2016 campaign and continuing into the president's recent flood of rallies, news outlets have debated whether to run Trump's speeches live, given that he is prone to spout outright falsehoods with abandon," Pete Vernon of Columbia Journalism Review noted in a detailed assessment of USA Today's decision to publish the president's op-ed.
"Responsible organizations have concluded that there are reasonable steps that can be taken to contextualize the false claims," Vernon added. "But in providing a print platform for similarly mendacious puffery of the president's own actions, USA Today chose to ignore the lessons that should have been learned by now, and it deserves the scrutiny and criticism it has received."
Reputable news publications tend to fact-check articles before they are published and blasted out to millions of Americans via social media, but USA Today is under fire for waiting a full day after it posted President Donald Trump's falsehood-riddled attack on Medicare for All to publish a refutation of the outright lies that filled nearly every single sentence of the president's piece.
"First we publish it, brimming with dubious claims and falsehoods. Then we share the juiciest bits on social. Then we fact check it. Then we promote the fact-check to critics and fans. Seems like a... sequencing problem," Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University, noted on Twitter after the newspaper on Thursday published its approximately 2,000-word rebuttal of Trump's 800-word op-ed.
USA Today's belated fact-check of Trump's piece--conducted by FactCheck.org and published in USA Today's "news" section--came after the publication faced intense backlash for posting what was characterized as little more than a White House press release that did not withstand even the most basic scrutiny from healthcare experts, journalists, lawmakers, and progressive analysts.
"'Tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand' is basically Free Press 101."
--Ryan Cooper, The Week
By publishing a fact-check 24 hours after Trump's op-ed appeared, critics argued, USA Today effectively conceded that either Trump's op-ed was not fact-checked before it reached the newspaper's massive daily readership and its millions of social media followers--or it was fact-checked and the paper's editorial team "knowingly published lies."
In response to widespread criticism of his decision to publish Trump's op-ed, Bill Sternberg--editor of USA Today's opinion page--insisted in a note appended to the very bottom of Trump's article that the president's piece was fact-checked just like all other opinion pieces the paper publishes online and in print on a daily basis.
"[W]e check factual assertions while allowing authors wide leeway to express their opinions," Sternberg said.
But the fact-check USA Today posted a day after it handed Trump a megaphone to spout flagrant lies shows that almost every "assertion" the president made in his piece is demonstrably false.
Here is FactCheck.org's broad summary of its findings:
- The president claimed that the Medicare for All Act, one of several Democratic-sponsored health insurance bills, would "cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years." That's an estimate of the cost to the federal government, but that ignores the offsetting savings in healthcare costs for individuals, employers, and state governments.
- Trump wrote that the Medicare for All Act would "take away benefits" from seniors. The plan calls for adding new benefits to Medicare coverage, including dental, vision and hearing aids, and eliminating deductibles.
- The president overstates the consensus when he says "we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around" the Medicare for All Act. There are competing bills that would expand insurance coverage by increasing access to Medicare or Medicaid.
- Trump claimed he kept his campaign promise to "protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions." But the administration supports a lawsuit that it says would lead to the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's pre-existing condition protections.
- The president also said he has kept his promise to "create new health insurance options" to lower premiums, "and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down." But not all premiums are "coming down."
As several journalists noted after Trump's op-ed appeared on Wednesday, the outlet had absolutely no obligation to publish the president's lie-filled piece--which, as Eli Pariser of Upworthy observed, will likely have the unfortunate consequence of harming the credibility of USA Today journalists who work tirelessly to get their facts straight.
In response to one commentator who expressed "sympathy" for USA Today's position, The Week's Ryan Cooper noted that a fundamental tenet of press freedom is the ability to "tell the lying powerful person to go pound sand."
"Throughout the 2016 campaign and continuing into the president's recent flood of rallies, news outlets have debated whether to run Trump's speeches live, given that he is prone to spout outright falsehoods with abandon," Pete Vernon of Columbia Journalism Review noted in a detailed assessment of USA Today's decision to publish the president's op-ed.
"Responsible organizations have concluded that there are reasonable steps that can be taken to contextualize the false claims," Vernon added. "But in providing a print platform for similarly mendacious puffery of the president's own actions, USA Today chose to ignore the lessons that should have been learned by now, and it deserves the scrutiny and criticism it has received."