SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
"There is no legal justification for this military strike," said one Amnesty International campaigner. "The US must be held accountable."
President Donald Trump said Monday that the US carried out a fresh strike on what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one human rights campaigner called another "extrajudicial execution."
"This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the [US Southern Command] area of responsibility," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US."
"These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to US National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital US Interests," the Republican president continued. "The Strike resulted in three male terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this Strike."
"BE WARNED—IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!" Trump added. "The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
US President Trump just announced that a second drug smuggling boat from Venezuela was hit by a US airstrike in the Caribbean, killing 3 people on board the boat.#Venezuela pic.twitter.com/dO34gYr9GZ
— CNW (@ConflictsW) September 15, 2025
Responding to arguments by legal experts and Venezuelan officials that the September 2 strike was illegal, Trump said Sunday that "what's illegal are the drugs that were on the boat... and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."
Only 62 million people died in the entire world of all causes last year, making Trump's claim impossibly false.
Monday's attack followed the September 2 bombing of a vessel allegedly transporting cocaine off the Venezuelan coast, a strike that killed 11 people. Venezuelan officials say none of the 11 men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, as claimed by Trump.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last month, the president reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat drug cartels abroad, sparking fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US attacks, invasions, occupations, and other interventions since the issuance of the dubious Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported Monday that the Trump administration's recently rebranded Department of War "is thwarting congressional oversight" of the September 2 attack.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in response to Turse's reporting. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings—and teased more to come.”
Common Dreams reported last week that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a war powers resolution seeking to restrain Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered "no legitimate justification" for the first boat strike.
It's not just congressional Democrats who have decried Trump's September 2 attack. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that "the recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war, and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement."
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul later added.
Paul also mirrored Democratic lawmakers' questioning of Trump's narrative that the boat bombed on September 2 was heading to the United States.
Echoing congressional critics, Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International's Security With Human Rights program, said of Monday's attack, "Today, President Trump claimed his administration carried out another lethal strike against a boat in the Caribbean."
"This is an extrajudicial execution, which is murder," Eviatar added. "There is no legal justification for this military strike. The US must be held accountable."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said one rights advocate.
Human rights leaders on Monday called on the 112 countries that are party to a treaty banning cluster munitions to reinforce the ban and demand that other governments sign on to the agreement, as they released an annual report showing that the bombs only serve to cause civilian suffering—sometimes long after conflicts have ended.
The governance board of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) released the 16th annual Cluster Munition Monitor on Monday, compiling data on the impact of cluster munitions for 2024 and revealing that all reported cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians—and close to half, 42%, were children.
Cluster bombs are particularly dangerous to civilians because after being dropped from aircraft or fired by rockets or other weapon, they open in the air and send multiple submunitions over wide areas—often leaving unexploded bomblets that are sometimes mistaken by children for harmless toys, and can kill and injure people in populated areas for years or even decades after the initial bombing.
The report, which was released as officials prepare to convene in Geneva for the Cluster Munitions Conference, says at least 314 global casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in 202, with 193 civilians killed in attacks in Ukraine—plus 15 who were killed by unexploded munitions.
Since the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted in 2008, none of the 112 signatories have used cluster bombs—but countries that are not party to the convention, including Russia and Ukraine, used the munitions throughout 2024 and into this year, and the US has said it transferred cluster bombs to Ukraine at least seven times between July 2023-October 2024.
The report details recent uses of cluster bombs, the impact of which may not be known for years as civilians remain at risk from the unexploded bombs, including by Thailand—by its own apparent admission—in its border conflict with Cambodia and allegedly by Iran, which Israel claimed used cluster munitions in its attack in June. Cluster munitions have also reportedly been used in recent years in Myanmar—including at schools—and Syria.
"Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
This year, the withdrawal of Lithuania from the Convention on Cluster Munitions—an unprecedented step—garnered condemnation from at least 47 countries. While it had never previously used or stockpiled cluster bombs, the country said it was necessary to have the option of using the munitions "to face increased regional security threats."
The casualties that continued throughout 2024 and into 2025 "demonstrate the need to clear more contaminated land and to provide more assistance to victims," said Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of CMC.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions has over many years made significant progress in reducing the human suffering caused by cluster munitions," said Mark Hiznay, associate crisis, conflict, and arms director for HRW. "Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
The report notes that funding cuts by donor states including the US, which under the second term of President Donald Trump has cut funding for landmine and cluster bomb clearance and aid, have left many affected countries struggling to provide services to survivors.
Children, the report notes, are often particularly in need of aid after suffering the effects of cluster munitions, as they are "more vulnerable to injury and frequently require repeated surgeries, regular prosthetic replacements as they grow, and long-term opportunities to access physical rehabilitation and psychological support."
"Without adequate care for children, complications can worsen, affecting their schooling, social interactions, mental health, and overall well-being," explained IBCL and CMC.
At the Cluster Munitions Conference taking place from September 16-19, said Anne Héry, advocacy director for the group Humanity and Inclusion, states must "reaffirm their commitment to this vital treaty."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said Héry. "Questioning the convention is unacceptable. States convening at the annual Cluster Munition Conference must reaffirm their strong attachment to the treaty and their condemnation of any use by any party."
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," said the Post Guild.
The union representing employees at The Washington Post on Monday condemned the paper for firing columnist Karen Attiah for comments she made about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In a statement, the Washington Post Guild said that firing Attiah betrayed the paper's mission to defend free speech in the United States.
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," the union said. "The right to speak freely is the ultimate personal liberty and the foundation of Karen’s 11-year career at the Post."
The union also said it was "proud to call Karen a colleague and a longtime union sibling" and that it "stands with her and will continue to support her and defend her rights."
Attiah announced on Monday morning that she had been fired from the Post over social media posts in the wake of Kirk's murder that were critical of his legacy but in no way endorsed or celebrated any form of political violence.
"The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being 'unacceptable,' 'gross misconduct,' and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues—charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false," she explained. "They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold."
Attiah only directly referenced Kirk once in her posts and said she had condemned the deadly attack on him “without engaging in excessive, false mourning for a man who routinely attacked Black women as a group, put academics in danger by putting them on watch lists, claimed falsely that Black people were better off in the era of Jim Crow, said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and favorably reviewed a book that called liberals 'Unhumans.'"
Independent progressive news site Drop Site News has published a running list on X documenting dozens of people who so far have been fired, suspended, or placed under investigation for their social media posts related to Kirk in the wake of his death. So far, says Drop Site News, over half of those targeted have been educators.