Epic Media Failure (Again!) in reporting on Health Care Reform

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The media villagers and Beltway bloviators issued a series of mea culpas to the public in recent years for their unquestioning, and often enabling (in some cases propaganda) reporting on the build up to the war in Iraq and cheerleading the housing bubble economy. They told us, "we're sorry we failed you, we'll do better next time."

Right. That's like a meth addict saying "this is the last time, I promise." They can't help themselves, it is the nature of their addiction.

So, once again, the media villagers and Beltway bloviators have engaged in an epic media failure in reporting on health care reform. This failure goes well beyond professional malpractice. In most cases the media is entirely dependent upon advertising revenue from the corporate sponsors (big pharma and insurance companies) who are aligned against health care reforms. (Evening news programs are brought to you by pharmaceutical ads). This is an irreconcilable conflict of interest, and may have crossed over the line into illegal propaganda (yes, propaganda is a crime in the U.S.)

Edward Wasserman observes in the Miami Herald Correct, ignore the lies:

The problem of how to cover claims that are both sensational and false is a perennial problem that journalists face.

* * *

Traditionally, the media would trumpet the false claim and then give reform advocates a chance to deny it. That's the customary news formula derided as “he said, she said.''

But the “he said, she said'' solution to the problem of reconciling accuracy with giving people their fair say has been under increasing attack. Jay Rosen, a New York University professor and new-media sage, posted a powerful critique of this “lame formula'' in April that has been widely cited, and it's clear that as a reporting paradigm it's crumbling.

* * *

So this time, when it came to the “death panels,'' The Washington Post's influential media reporter, Howard Kurtz, observed: “For once, mainstream journalists did not retreat to the studied neutrality of quoting dueling antagonists.'' Reporters took the additional step of pointing out, on their own authority, that the proposals don't contain any such provision. To “he said, she said,'' was added: “we say.''

Trouble is, it hasn't really mattered. Even though news organizations debunked the claim, 45 percent of respondents to an NBC poll still believe the reforms would indeed allow the federal government to halt treatment to the elderly — a staggering number.

Why? Maybe because, by Kurtz's count, Palin's “death panels'' were mentioned 18 times by his own paper, 16 times in The New York Times and at least 154 times on cable and network news (not including daytime news shows.)

Plainly, refuting a falsehood doesn't keep it from doing harm. The solution isn't some cheap fix, first giving end-of-the-world play to some incendiary fantasy and then inserting a line that says the preceding was utter rubbish. The real problem goes to the core of traditional news practices. As Greg Marx noted in a sensible Columbia Journalism Review posting, the solution is “making a more concerted effort not to disseminate false or dubious claims in the first place.''

* * *

As the saying goes, what really matters isn't what people think, it's what they think about: Debunking falsehoods is fine, but the more that news media embrace it as if it's a cure-all, the worse we'll all be. The solution isn't to refute, it's to ignore. End the practice of rewarding the most sensational, the most irresponsible, the most baseless allegations with top-of-the-news billing. The media bury worthwhile news all the time; how about burying the worthless stuff?

There, however, the problem isn't so much with reporters, it's with their bosses, the ones who insist on running the screaming footage from “town meetings,'' on giving dramatic lies a prominence they don't deserve — ensuring an audience, but while ensuring the lies a public life no reasoned refutation can end.

“He said, she said'' has always been a dubious way to report the world. “We say'' helps, but only a little. The real solution is simple: It's called news judgment.

While the media has fixated on a small number of town hall protesters orchestrated by PR firms for corporations, political action committees and the Republican Party to distract public attention away from any serious discussion of health care reforms, the media is ignoring the Silent Majority of Americans Who Want Reform (The silent majority of Americans all across our country suffering from our broken health care system and pleading with Congress to pass health care reform now.  Check out these stories and help make sure they get more attention than the few people shouting from the fringe:  www.statefairstories.org.)

The media's professional malpractice and conflicts of interest are why a Majority of Democrats, Republicans, Don't Understand Obama Health Care Proposal.

Despite the media's abject failure to inform and educate the public, “Coordinated attacks by Republicans and other opponents of health insurance reform have had little effect on the strong support for a public health insurance option.” Dave Harding's Blog: House Leadership Memo On Public Option To Put Some Spine Into Any Wavering Dems

The memo,which comes as intra-Dem fighting over the public option is set to intensify, also sends a simple message to centrist Dems: The public wants this done!

Daily Kos reported the new AARP poll:

A new poll [pdf] from AARP, National Journal and Penn, Schoen & Berland shows strong support for universal health coverage–86 percent, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. Large majorities also reject paying more in either insurance premiums (74%) or taxes (64%) to expand access to care.

That's not the most striking finding. Asked whether they would support or oppose "a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them" 79 percent supported it, including 89 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents, and 61 percent of Republicans. As for the government's responsibility for health care, this is perhaps the most profound finding:

Independents are the key swing vote, and 73% of them believe that the government should be most financially responsible for making sure that Americans have access to affordable, quality care.

Furthermore, 4 out of 5 Independents support the creation of a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them ­ the essence of the so-called "public option."

Of course, you would never know any of this if you only listen to the media villagers and Beltway bloviators who decided shortly after Election Day that their narrative would be that health care reform is doomed to failure like Bill Clinton's reforms in 1993-1994, and the next narrative for which the media is already laying the groundwork, that the failure to reform health care will lead to a GOP comeback in 2010. The "familiar" narratives are being driven by the lazy and corrupt media villagers and Beltway bloviators who are guilty of professional malpractice and unduly influenced by irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Many of the same assholes were around to promote the same shop-worn narratives back in 1993-1994.

The public must depend upon the media for accurate facts, information and analysis to make an informed decision. But once again the media is failing the public on an epic scale.

NB: The Arizona Daily Star is among the worst purveyors of the kind of reporting that Edward Wasserman describes in his opinion above. For example, the Star reporters lead with "rowdy" or "raucus" crowds like they are reporting on a WWF wrestling match. Crowd attentive, at times rowdy:

[F]ormer U.S. Surgeon General and Tucson resident Dr. Richard Carmona told the crowd that health-care reform is essential to contain escalating costs and to change a system that focuses on "sick care" rather than health.

He added that he's been disappointed at how many of the forums on national reform have devolved into shouting matches.

"Shut up!" one audience member responded.

And the Arizona Daily Star takes the "he said, she said" format of supposedly "balanced" reporting one step further with the "man on the street" interview, reporting the crazy shit people believe without any fact check or correction, or even a counter-point opinion, proving Mr. Wasserman's point. Overflow crowd greets Giffords on health care (subtext: "Raucus Town Hall in Tucson"):

Others handed out glossy cards that underlined the partisan nature of the health-care debate. The card, which stated it was paid for by the Republican National Committee, said Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes, impose regulations that would force employers to drop workers from their plans and create a government-run health-care monopoly.

"It will hurt us for generations," said Diane Flock, a Tucsonan in her mid-50s who stood outside the venue telling those filing in that supporting the health-care overhaul would be akin to paying $300,000 for a car.

"I feel like our country is being taken away from us. This is only a small part of Obama's agenda," said Robert Peace, a 73-year-old pilot instructor who stood outside holding an American flag and a sign that said "Gabby Vote No Obamacare."

"It's a takeover of our country and we need to stop it while we can," he said.

Total f#?king nonsense paid for by the Republican National Committee and reported endlessly by the GOP propaganda network of Faux News and talk radio, without any fact check or correction from the Arizona Daily Star reporter. This is the worst kind of reporting, and it occurs all too frequently in the Arizona Daily Star. The publisher and editors of this newspaper are failing miserably to inform and educate the public.