Health Reform Too Boring for Broadcast?

Over the weekend, Politico published
one of those juicy, inside-the-industry stories that media execs love
to read. The story trashed health care reform as boring television and
noted that MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan called health care "bad for
ratings." As proof of Ratigan's assertion, Politico cited the
comparatively low turnout for the president's health care news conference
last week--24.5 million viewers, the smallest prime time audience of the
Obama presidency. And, said Politico, Fox was right for not airing the
president's words--its episode of So You Think You Can Dance won first place in the eight p.m. time slot.

Politico consulted Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post,
who said that indeed health care was "bad for ratings, but not talking
about it is bad for the American people." OK, we agree. Then John
Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, weighed in: "It's not
only not a cable TV-friendly story; it's not a journalism-friendly
story." Harwood, who also writes for The New York Times, opined
that reporters need to understand the intricacies and nuances of health
policy before they inform their audiences. Well, yes. We've been
offering suggestions of how to do that for nearly two years now.

NPR's Julie Rovner added her two cents, saying that health care is
"so big and so complicated that the public is never really going to
understand all the moving parts of this." That makes them vulnerable to
the fear-mongering ads bought and paid for by special interest
demagogues of all stripes, she explained. Jon Banner, Charlie Gibson's
executive producer over at ABC News, believes "there are too many bills
with too many details, which are all different.... That's confusing to
people."

So should we stop explaining to the public how they will be affected
by whatever comes forth from Congress because, as Rovner suggests, they
will never understand it anyway? Should we forget about the details, as
Banner implies? For months, we at Campaign Desk have criticized the
president and members of Congress for being too vague, and have urged
them to explain--in detailed terms--how reform will affect their
constituents. Failing to do so leaves the public susceptible to special
interest propaganda. What exactly does a "public option" or "bundled
payments" mean to an auto mechanic on Main Street?

We're sorry Politico didn't talk to us about good health care
reporting. We would have pointed its reporter to KQED in San Francisco,
which through its Health Dialogue series has done an excellent job all
year of covering health topics,
ranging from the use of emergency rooms by drug addicts to myths and
misinformation about the Canadian health care system. On this one,
details do matter, and health reporter Sarah Varney separated the facts
from the fiction currently being spread by TV ads purchased by
conservative interests who oppose single-payer systems.

Varney traveled to Vancouver to learn what health care is actually
like in Canada. Contrary to popular belief, she found health care works
pretty well. In a note to me, Varney said:

I would say as an American health reporter there is a lot
of pressure inside news rooms to give the Canadian horror stories equal
footing with what my reporting actually found---which was that the
Canadian system is by-and-large a functioning system that covers
everyone for half the cost with enviable health outcomes.

Varney told a compelling and interesting story that directly
contradicts the ads now running on U.S. television. She also conducted
a roundtable conversation with some of the best Canadian health
experts, including leading health economists Robert Evans and Morris
Barer. They explained that their system is not socialized
medicine--doctors don't work for the state; they are independent and run
their own practices. What is socialized is the insurance pool--every
Canadian is in it--which powers the country's lower cost, not-for-profit
health insurance system.

As for the long waits Canadians supposedly endure, the number of
people who do that is "vanishingly small." The illusion has been
created, said Evans, that there are lines of people near death wanting
services in Canada. He called that "absolute nonsense." The government
has recently taken steps to alleviate whatever waits existed, by
establishing national benchmarks and allocating more money for certain
types of care.

Varney's piece addressed the notion of rationing, often used as a
scare tactic by right-wing groups. In Canada, the experts told KQED
listeners, care is rationed according to need; in the U.S., it's
rationed by the ability to get insurance and pay the bills.

Granted, KQED is a public radio station, but we don't see why some
of the stories it has tackled can't be replicated by enterprising TV
producers and reporters--that is, if they are seriously interested in
transcending health care's image as a ratings buster. The story Varney
did for radio I did in print for Consumer Reports in 1992. I,
too, went to Vancouver to investigate the claims conservative interests
were making, and, like Varney, I found them untruthful. I interviewed
some of the same people she did--Evans and Barer--who told me the same
things they told Varney. That was one of the best and most enlightening
reporting experiences of my career. If we can do a story that worked
well in print for its time and now works well in radio and on the Web,
why can't it be done on TV?