April, 23 2010, 06:08pm EDT
Frontline Edits Out Single-Payer
Documentary misrepresented advocates as supporters of a public option
NEW YORK
Silencing supporters of single-payer, or Medicare for All, is a
media staple, but PBS's Frontline found a new way to do
that on the April 13 special Obama's Deal--by selectively
editing an interview with a single-payer advocate and footage of
single-payer protesters to make them appear to be activists for a
public option instead.
The public option proposal would have offered a
government-run health insurance program to some individuals as an
alternative to mandatory private health insurance. Not only is this
not the same thing as Medicare for All, it's an idea many single-payer
advocates actually opposed, arguing that it would leave the insurance
industry intact as dominant players in the healthcare business
(PNHP.org, 7/20/09).
In the report, Frontline explained that
insurance industry lobbyists pushed a bill in the Senate Finance
Committee chaired by Sen. Max Baucus (D.-Montana) "that would include
the mandate to buy insurance and kill the public option." That "didn't
sit well with the president's liberal supporters," the Frontline
narrator told viewers. After a clip from public-option supporter
Howard Dean, a full minute and a half focused on protests: "The left
counterattacked in May.... Liberal outrage arrived in Baucus' own
hearing room as healthcare activists, one after another, shouted him
down." Several of these protesters are seen in action, with a clip of
an interview with Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health
Program (PNHP) saying that these were members of her group shut out of
the hearings.
Now, Flowers and PNHP are leading single-payer
advocates--but you'd never learn that from watching the Frontline
program, which never mentions the single-payer concept. Instead,
viewers were left to assume that Flowers and the protesters were
public-option proponents, since that was the only progressive proposal
that had been discussed. As Flowers explained (Consortium News,
4/15/10):
When the host, Mr.
[Michael] Kirk, interviewed me for Obama's Deal, we spoke extensively
of the single-payer movement and my arrest with other single-payer
advocates in the Senate Finance Committee last May. However, our action
in Senate Finance was then misidentified as "those on the left" who
led a "counterattack" because of "liberal outrage" at being excluded.
Viewers saw more footage of protesters being
handcuffed and led away, with an unidentified voiceover from Amy
Goodman of Democracy Now! describing the arrests, and finally a
voice was heard saying: "This option cannot be part of the discussion
at a Senate hearing? Now, I think that's wrong."
The audience could only conclude that "this option"
referred to the public option, but this conclusion would be incorrect;
this voice was actually MSNBC host Ed Schultz, a single-payer
supporter, and a fuller version of his quote (5/7/09) would have made
it clear that he was complaining about single-payer being excluded from
the hearing:
Now, let me explain
single-payer for just a minute. The money comes from one source, the
government. Now, you and I pay taxes, OK. The government pays the bill.
It's that simple. Patients are not caught in the middle between
doctors and insurance companies, no game-playing here. There's no
middleman. You know? There's no decision-makers between you and your
doctor. It's a clean deal.
So what Chairman Baucus has decided, this option
cannot be part of the discussion at a Senate hearing? Now, I think
that's wrong. I don't think it's fair.
Frontline's editors responded to Flowers'
complaints, saying that they "understand the frustration of Dr. Flowers
and others in what she calls the 'single-payer movement,'" but that
"it's the work of journalism to report widely on a topic, then find the
sharpest focus for the reporting, unfortunately leaving out much
strong material along the way to shaping the clearest communication
possible in the time or space allowed."
The statement also argued that
the section that
included Dr. Flowers was focused on the power of the insurance lobby
and showed how activists like Dr. Flowers were excluded from the debate
over the bill. The protesters themselves said they were protesting the
fact that they had been excluded from the debate, so we believe we
presented the protests in the proper context.
But in Frontline's presentation,
"activists like Dr. Flowers"--that is, single-payer advocates--didn't
even exist. Having itself excluded their perspective from the
debate--and even misrepresented them as supporters of a position that
many of them actually oppose--there's some irony in Frontline
claiming to have put this exclusion in the "proper context."
This is not the first time that Frontline
has decided that a conversation about healthcare reform should exclude
single-payer (FAIR Action Alert, 4/7/09). The March 31, 2009, Frontline
special Sick Around America avoided
discussions of national healthcare plans. This omission led Frontline
correspondent T.R. Reid--who had hosted a previous Frontline
special (4/15/08) that examined various public
healthcare models--to withdraw from the project.
When Frontline pushed
single-payer out of the debate last year, PBS ombud
Michael Getler (4/10/09) weighed in on the side of
critics, calling it a "missed opportunity." Getler today (4/23/10) published a column about the
latest Frontline omissions, once again finding that ignoring a popular
policy like single-payer is problematic:
It seems to me that
to ignore something that was out there and popular with millions of
people and thousands of healthcare professionals, but not really on the
table, was a mistake. Although obviously tight on time, the producers
should have found 30 seconds to take this into account, because many
Americans support it, yet the deal makers never mention it, nor is the
politics of discarding it addressed.
We're thankful that Getler has once again taken this
view and encouraged a more inclusive discussion of healthcare on PBS.
However, his criticism misses the critical journalistic fact that
single-payer advocates were not only marginalized by Frontline--they
were misrepresented.
ACTION:
Tell Frontline that their recent program Obama's
Deal should have accurately explained the views of single-payer
advocates.
CONTACT:
Frontline
frontline@pbs.org
You may also want to write to PBS ombud
Michael Getler (ombudsman@pbs.org).
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Despite Court Rulings, Trump Refuses to Pay Out Food Stamp Benefits to Tens of Millions
"The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations," says one Georgetown law professor.
Nov 01, 2025
Two federal judges have said the Trump administration cannot use the government shutdown to suspend food assistance for 42 million Americans. But hours into Saturday, when payments were due to be disbursed, President Donald Trump appears to be defying the ruling, potentially leaving millions unable to afford this month's grocery bills.
A pair of federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled Friday that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) freeze on benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, was unlawful and that the department must use money from a contingency fund of $6 billion to pay for at least a portion of the roughly $8 billion meant to be disbursed this month.
“There is no doubt that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation,” said US District Judge McConnell of Rhode Island in his oral ruling. “The shutdown of the government through funding doesn’t do away with SNAP. It just does away with the funding of it. There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations.”
McConnell added: “There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family."
SNAP benefits are available to people whose monthly incomes fall below 130% of the federal poverty line. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children. According to USDA research, cited by the Washington Post, those who receive SNAP benefits rely on it for 63% of their groceries, with the poorest, who make below 50% of the poverty line, relying on it for as much as 80%.
McConnell shot down the administration's contention that the contingency funds may be needed for some other hypothetical emergency in the future, saying "It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed."
While the judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that Trump merely had to use the contingency funds to fund as much of the program as possible, McConnell went further, saying that in addition, they had to tap other sources of funding to disburse benefits in full, and do so "as soon as possible." Both judges gave the administration until Monday to provide updates on how it planned to follow the ruling.
However, after the ruling on Friday, Trump insisted on social media that "government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do."
He added: "I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible."
Attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu pointed out in Common Dreams that, "until a few days ago, even the Trump administration agreed that these funds should be used to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown."
On September 30, the day before the shutdown began, the USDA posted a 55-page "Lapse of Funding" plan to its website, which plainly stated that if the government were to shut down, "the department will continue operations related to... core nutrition safety net programs.”
But this week, USDA abruptly deleted the file and posted a new memo that concocted a new legal reality out of whole cloth, stating that “due to Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), approximately 42 million individuals will not receive SNAP benefits come November 1st.”
As Mogulescu notes: "The new memo cited absolutely no law supporting its position. Instead, it made up a rule claiming that the 'contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exist.'"
Sharon Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who previously served as an official in the White House Office of Management, said last week that it's "unequivocally false" that the administration's hands are tied.
"I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families," Parrott said. "Even at this late date, the professionals at the Department of Agriculture and in states can make this happen. And, to state the obvious, benefits that are a couple of days delayed are far more help to families than going without any help at all."
She added: "The administration itself admits these reserves are available for use. It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds. Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage."
In hopes of pressuring Democrats to abandon their demands that Congress extend a critical Affordable Care Act tax credit and prevent health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for more than 20 million Americans, Republicans have sought to use the shutdown to inflict maximum pain on voters.
Trump has attempted to carry out mass layoffs of government workers, which have been halted by a federal judge. Meanwhile, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has stripped funding from energy and transportation infrastructure projects aimed at blue states and cities.
"Terminating SNAP is a choice, and an overtly unlawful one at that," says David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. "The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


