Democratic presidential hopeful Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders speaks at the Spin Room after the third Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season hosted by ABC News in partnership with Univision at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas on September 12, 2019. (Photo: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)
What George Carlin Taught Us About Media Propaganda by Omission: On Bernie Sanders, Medicare for All, and the Green New Deal
It is instructive when you realize what news outlets are doing when they only give you the "partial score."
In the old George Carlin joke, the TV sportscaster announces: "Here's a partial score from the West Coast - Los Angeles 6."
For a brilliant comedian like Carlin--who skewered corporate power, class structure and political/media propaganda--that's one of his more innocuous jokes. But it's sharply relevant today as corporate TV news outlets serve up a series of partial scores. Call it "propaganda by omission."
Take the coverage that followed Thursday's Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders didn't object in the debate when Joe Biden hung a price tag on Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan of $30 trillion (over 10 years). Sanders responded by offering the other score: "That's right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion. Every study done shows that Medicare for All is the most cost-effective approach to providing healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country."
The $50 trillion figure for continuing the status quo (actually $47 trillion) comes from the "National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet" of the federal government's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
I checked the post-debate news coverage. As in the Carlin joke, I found many references to the partial score: the $30-32 trillion estimated cost of Sanders' legislation. But not the other score: the more costly estimate of sticking with a system in which health insurance is provided by for-profit corporations.
I watched, for example, the next day's in-depth report on CBS Evening News lasting a full two minutes. (That's "in-depth" nowadays on nightly newscasts.) The $32 trillion estimate was prominent, but the other score was omitted--no estimate for staying with the status quo. When the report ended, anchor Nora O'Donnell accentuated the bias by saying: "That's an expensive plan, Ed. Thank you."
CBS opened its report speaking of "government-run healthcare plans being touted by liberal Democrats." It's well-known that "government-run healthcare" is a GOP/Fox News/insurance industry talking point. As is "government takeover" of healthcare. Just ask GOP propagandist Frank Luntz.
Of course, when Medicare simply provides the coverage--whether to older people today or everyone tomorrow--that's NOT "government-run healthcare."
As I recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times in response to a biased poll question: "Doctors and hospitals are private today within Medicare in the U.S. (I know because I'm old enough to be on Medicare)--and they would remain so under a Medicare for All system, just as doctors and hospitals are private today under Canada's Medicare for All system. Insurance is government-provided; not the healthcare itself."
It's easy to explain why Medicare for All is more cost-effective than the corporate-insurance system.Less bureaucracy and wasteful paperwork. No sales commissions. No exorbitant CEO compensation--averaging $18 million per healthcare CEO last year. No insurance company profits; the "big 8 health insurers" raked in $7 billion in one quarter last year.
But confusion, not clarity, is the job of TV news--which is so heavily sponsored by drug and healthcare companies. (Night after night, big pharma is the main sponsor of network newscasts.) And confusion is the job of industry ads and corporate politicians like Biden, who receives more healthcare industry donations than any other Democratic candidate.
That's why we keep getting partial scores.
Besides the reduction in financial cost, imagine the reduction in human cost--hardship and anxiety--if our country joined every other wealthy country in achieving truly universal health coverage.
Which bring us to a partial score on another crisis causing hardship and anxiety today: climate change. The Green New Deal proposal in Congress to address the problem, while creating millions of high-paying jobs, has been savaged as "too expensive"--with Mitch McConnell and Republicans incessantly invoking a concocted and ridiculous figure of $93 trillion.
As with Medicare for All, moneyed elites want to omit the other score--the price tag of sticking with the status quo into a future that Bill McKibben describes as "a modern Dark Ages." From science-denying Republicans to solution-denying corporate Democrats who seek a go-slow "middle-ground," there's an attempt to downplay the more expensive cost of deny and delay, including: rising seas and rivers, more damaging hurricanes and floods, worsening droughts and wildfires, buckling bridges and roads, increased air pollution and hospitalizations, premature deaths, crop failures, extinct species, spread of new diseases, intensified migration and more brutal civil wars.
McKibben argues that the Green New Deal "costs pennies on the dollar" compared to the bleak and costly future predicted by scientists. McKibben, of course, doesn't sponsor TV news. The fossil fuel industry does.
In a country as wealthy as ours--when progressive proposals to address the crises of climate, healthcare and social inequality are routinely shot down by corporate politicians and media as "too expensive"--George Carlin's quip reminds us to demand the other score: the horrific cost of our unequal and unsustainable status quo.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In the old George Carlin joke, the TV sportscaster announces: "Here's a partial score from the West Coast - Los Angeles 6."
For a brilliant comedian like Carlin--who skewered corporate power, class structure and political/media propaganda--that's one of his more innocuous jokes. But it's sharply relevant today as corporate TV news outlets serve up a series of partial scores. Call it "propaganda by omission."
Take the coverage that followed Thursday's Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders didn't object in the debate when Joe Biden hung a price tag on Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan of $30 trillion (over 10 years). Sanders responded by offering the other score: "That's right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion. Every study done shows that Medicare for All is the most cost-effective approach to providing healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country."
The $50 trillion figure for continuing the status quo (actually $47 trillion) comes from the "National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet" of the federal government's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
I checked the post-debate news coverage. As in the Carlin joke, I found many references to the partial score: the $30-32 trillion estimated cost of Sanders' legislation. But not the other score: the more costly estimate of sticking with a system in which health insurance is provided by for-profit corporations.
I watched, for example, the next day's in-depth report on CBS Evening News lasting a full two minutes. (That's "in-depth" nowadays on nightly newscasts.) The $32 trillion estimate was prominent, but the other score was omitted--no estimate for staying with the status quo. When the report ended, anchor Nora O'Donnell accentuated the bias by saying: "That's an expensive plan, Ed. Thank you."
CBS opened its report speaking of "government-run healthcare plans being touted by liberal Democrats." It's well-known that "government-run healthcare" is a GOP/Fox News/insurance industry talking point. As is "government takeover" of healthcare. Just ask GOP propagandist Frank Luntz.
Of course, when Medicare simply provides the coverage--whether to older people today or everyone tomorrow--that's NOT "government-run healthcare."
As I recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times in response to a biased poll question: "Doctors and hospitals are private today within Medicare in the U.S. (I know because I'm old enough to be on Medicare)--and they would remain so under a Medicare for All system, just as doctors and hospitals are private today under Canada's Medicare for All system. Insurance is government-provided; not the healthcare itself."
It's easy to explain why Medicare for All is more cost-effective than the corporate-insurance system.Less bureaucracy and wasteful paperwork. No sales commissions. No exorbitant CEO compensation--averaging $18 million per healthcare CEO last year. No insurance company profits; the "big 8 health insurers" raked in $7 billion in one quarter last year.
But confusion, not clarity, is the job of TV news--which is so heavily sponsored by drug and healthcare companies. (Night after night, big pharma is the main sponsor of network newscasts.) And confusion is the job of industry ads and corporate politicians like Biden, who receives more healthcare industry donations than any other Democratic candidate.
That's why we keep getting partial scores.
Besides the reduction in financial cost, imagine the reduction in human cost--hardship and anxiety--if our country joined every other wealthy country in achieving truly universal health coverage.
Which bring us to a partial score on another crisis causing hardship and anxiety today: climate change. The Green New Deal proposal in Congress to address the problem, while creating millions of high-paying jobs, has been savaged as "too expensive"--with Mitch McConnell and Republicans incessantly invoking a concocted and ridiculous figure of $93 trillion.
As with Medicare for All, moneyed elites want to omit the other score--the price tag of sticking with the status quo into a future that Bill McKibben describes as "a modern Dark Ages." From science-denying Republicans to solution-denying corporate Democrats who seek a go-slow "middle-ground," there's an attempt to downplay the more expensive cost of deny and delay, including: rising seas and rivers, more damaging hurricanes and floods, worsening droughts and wildfires, buckling bridges and roads, increased air pollution and hospitalizations, premature deaths, crop failures, extinct species, spread of new diseases, intensified migration and more brutal civil wars.
McKibben argues that the Green New Deal "costs pennies on the dollar" compared to the bleak and costly future predicted by scientists. McKibben, of course, doesn't sponsor TV news. The fossil fuel industry does.
In a country as wealthy as ours--when progressive proposals to address the crises of climate, healthcare and social inequality are routinely shot down by corporate politicians and media as "too expensive"--George Carlin's quip reminds us to demand the other score: the horrific cost of our unequal and unsustainable status quo.
In the old George Carlin joke, the TV sportscaster announces: "Here's a partial score from the West Coast - Los Angeles 6."
For a brilliant comedian like Carlin--who skewered corporate power, class structure and political/media propaganda--that's one of his more innocuous jokes. But it's sharply relevant today as corporate TV news outlets serve up a series of partial scores. Call it "propaganda by omission."
Take the coverage that followed Thursday's Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders didn't object in the debate when Joe Biden hung a price tag on Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan of $30 trillion (over 10 years). Sanders responded by offering the other score: "That's right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion. Every study done shows that Medicare for All is the most cost-effective approach to providing healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country."
The $50 trillion figure for continuing the status quo (actually $47 trillion) comes from the "National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet" of the federal government's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
I checked the post-debate news coverage. As in the Carlin joke, I found many references to the partial score: the $30-32 trillion estimated cost of Sanders' legislation. But not the other score: the more costly estimate of sticking with a system in which health insurance is provided by for-profit corporations.
I watched, for example, the next day's in-depth report on CBS Evening News lasting a full two minutes. (That's "in-depth" nowadays on nightly newscasts.) The $32 trillion estimate was prominent, but the other score was omitted--no estimate for staying with the status quo. When the report ended, anchor Nora O'Donnell accentuated the bias by saying: "That's an expensive plan, Ed. Thank you."
CBS opened its report speaking of "government-run healthcare plans being touted by liberal Democrats." It's well-known that "government-run healthcare" is a GOP/Fox News/insurance industry talking point. As is "government takeover" of healthcare. Just ask GOP propagandist Frank Luntz.
Of course, when Medicare simply provides the coverage--whether to older people today or everyone tomorrow--that's NOT "government-run healthcare."
As I recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times in response to a biased poll question: "Doctors and hospitals are private today within Medicare in the U.S. (I know because I'm old enough to be on Medicare)--and they would remain so under a Medicare for All system, just as doctors and hospitals are private today under Canada's Medicare for All system. Insurance is government-provided; not the healthcare itself."
It's easy to explain why Medicare for All is more cost-effective than the corporate-insurance system.Less bureaucracy and wasteful paperwork. No sales commissions. No exorbitant CEO compensation--averaging $18 million per healthcare CEO last year. No insurance company profits; the "big 8 health insurers" raked in $7 billion in one quarter last year.
But confusion, not clarity, is the job of TV news--which is so heavily sponsored by drug and healthcare companies. (Night after night, big pharma is the main sponsor of network newscasts.) And confusion is the job of industry ads and corporate politicians like Biden, who receives more healthcare industry donations than any other Democratic candidate.
That's why we keep getting partial scores.
Besides the reduction in financial cost, imagine the reduction in human cost--hardship and anxiety--if our country joined every other wealthy country in achieving truly universal health coverage.
Which bring us to a partial score on another crisis causing hardship and anxiety today: climate change. The Green New Deal proposal in Congress to address the problem, while creating millions of high-paying jobs, has been savaged as "too expensive"--with Mitch McConnell and Republicans incessantly invoking a concocted and ridiculous figure of $93 trillion.
As with Medicare for All, moneyed elites want to omit the other score--the price tag of sticking with the status quo into a future that Bill McKibben describes as "a modern Dark Ages." From science-denying Republicans to solution-denying corporate Democrats who seek a go-slow "middle-ground," there's an attempt to downplay the more expensive cost of deny and delay, including: rising seas and rivers, more damaging hurricanes and floods, worsening droughts and wildfires, buckling bridges and roads, increased air pollution and hospitalizations, premature deaths, crop failures, extinct species, spread of new diseases, intensified migration and more brutal civil wars.
McKibben argues that the Green New Deal "costs pennies on the dollar" compared to the bleak and costly future predicted by scientists. McKibben, of course, doesn't sponsor TV news. The fossil fuel industry does.
In a country as wealthy as ours--when progressive proposals to address the crises of climate, healthcare and social inequality are routinely shot down by corporate politicians and media as "too expensive"--George Carlin's quip reminds us to demand the other score: the horrific cost of our unequal and unsustainable status quo.