The mainstream media has failed miserably in its coverage of
the healthcare reform discussion in this nation. There have been ample reports
about that. And it hasn't been until the presence of cameras and
reporters could stir the pot of controversy in a ratings-readership-web traffic
sort of way with minimal actual journalism work that most of the major media
outlets have tried even minimally to provide comprehensive coverage from which
Americans could learn facts about whatever reform plan was planned.
If you see and hear sensationalism now in the health reform
discussion, look right to the profit margins for media for those
cause-and-effect relationships. I'll use the Washington Post as
an example, but they are by no means alone in their unabashed bias and
reporting aimed at prolonging the healthcare reform fight as a means to more
business for themselves.
If it bleeds, it leads... and this nation's healthcare
reform fight is gushing.
If Rush Limbaugh can dribble about swastikas and compare
them to the Obama's team logo for healthcare reform and Sarah Palin can
Twitter about "death panels" determining the future for her darling
baby, that's one thing. The fact that those comments get coverage that
spans pages in major newspapers and hours of mainstream television coverage is
a pandering to boosting controversy to boosting ratings and readership and to
ultimately boosting ad revenues. It's all about the money.
Remember, in 2008 the elections provided every form of media
with huge ad buys and profits and this is an off-election year. No Obama team
with millions and millions of dollars for ads about changing America, and no
Congressional smear campaigns. So when a reform measure comes forward, the
media needs -- it really needs -- to find a way to cash in.
Yes, we all know about all the advertising generated by the
usual folks opposed to reform -- the health insurance companies and the
big pharmaceuticals -- but those folks so far are loving the kind of
reform we'll likely get.
Else, why would they just flat lie to us about shutting out
any particular type of reform from the discussion? See the Fairness & Accuracy
in Reporting interchange with the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz below
(taken from their web-chat of this morning, August 10, 2009):
Princeton, N.J.: This is from
FAIR:
"Many experts see single-payer national
health insurance as the most sensible solution to expand coverage to the
uninsured and to reduce costs. This proposal polls well with the public, who
preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York
Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). It is also preferred by 59 percent of physicians,
according to a recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine
(4/1/08).
Yet a recent study by FAIR found that of
hundreds of stories about health care in major outlets earlier this year, only
five stories included the views of advocates of single-payer -- none of which
appeared on the television networks.
The insurance lobbies and many politicians may
not want to talk about single-payer. But that makes it all the more important
that the media do."
How would you rate the Post's coverage of single
payer? D or F?
Howard Kurtz: I think the reality
is, we are engaged in a titanic battle over health care reform, and a
single-payer system is not part of the debate because Obama has gone in a
different direction. Single-payer may or may not be a great idea, but the
political reality is that it is not going to even come to a vote in Congress,
let alone pass, and so the media are focusing their attention on the proposals
that might actually pass.
Huh? So
the Washington Post has pre-determined that single-payer shall not be
discussed because President Obama says so? Not exactly an answer that would
line up the health policy reporters for a Pulitzer. Read what he says again.
Carefully. "The media are focusing their attention on the proposals that
might actually pass..."
One
might wonder what other news is reported by the Washington Post after
its reporters and editors have decided what might actually be the outcome.
That's just silly. It sounds ridiculous and lazy because it is so. And
if we look at the rich and storied history of the Washington Post as a
news organization, it is a tragedy to see such a flippant and inelegant
response to the question posed about reporting on single-payer reform. But it
could just as easily have been any one of the major news outlets.
The
founders of this nation envisioned a press as a vital part of the Democratic
process. Can you imagine if the early newspapers only covered those sides of
the political struggle that they thought would win during, say, the
Revolutionary War? Well, perhaps we'd still be bowing to the king of
England. And we'd certainly be without our government founded to be of,
for and by the people.
So, we
won't be getting our best news from our traditionally best news sources.
Because sadly, the Post stands with the other major news organizations
in its ignorance on this subject -- and it's ignorance born of the
same greed that has tainted the whole debate. The American people might be
expected to react in a volatile manner when all that is presented to them is
ridiculous and outlandish comments from the Limbaugh's and the
Palin's and the pictures are of people yelling in town hall meetings
because they have been misled about the discussions.
Far
better, Mr. Kurtz, to vet all the options before us, including the pending
votes on single-payer measures that will take place on the floor of the House
and the Senate in short order (I'm afraid that part of your response is
just flat inaccurate) and then let the American people be heard. That is what
good journalism in a sound democracy is all about.
You,
sir, missed the mark by a very long shot.