Same ole M$M...
What's Wrong with the Media?
By Cenk Uygur
Two different articles came out today on healthcare reform. One is in Politico and the other is in the Washington Post. They both do two things that are inexplicable and inexcusable.
First, the president's healthcare reform package is thrown into doubt in both articles. Will he be able to pass it? Is he floundering? Is this reform effort in trouble?
When you read the articles, however, you don't get any reason why these assumptions are made or these questions asked. There are no poll numbers to indicate that the American people want healthcare reform any less - or that they are more skeptical about Obama's version. In fact, we know the opposite is true. There have been many different polls that show the public is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's version of reform, which includes a public option (for example, a CBS News/New York Times poll had 72% in favor and even a poll done by healthcare reform opponents showed 83% in favor of the public option).
Those are unreal numbers and indicate that Obama has the public clearly behind him on this issue. So, what does the media do? They write an article about how Obama is in trouble on this issue. Their evidence? He called a "hastily scheduled" press conference on Friday that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley was not in favor of. Are you kidding me?
But mainly they almost seem to rejoice in pointing out that he is having trouble getting some of his fellow Democrats on board. That is true. And that gets us to point number two. Throughout both articles, they credulously point to conservative Democrats concerns about how quickly this is all proceeding or how much the plan will cost.
Did it not occur to these reporters that some of these so-called conservative or centrist Democrats might be against this reform effort because their primary financial benefactors are the same healthcare companies that are desperate to kill this bill? Would it not have given the reader a better and more informed perspective to at least mention this possibility? Or do you want to just take these politicians at their word?
Look, we all knew the healthcare industry was going to try to kill this reform effort, especially the public option provision. How did you think they were going to do it? Did you think they would just walk up to the media and announce, "We have bought these six to eight senators and they will vote our way because we paid them."?
These senators are not against Obama's healthcare effort because they want to have time to study it more. How credulous and sadly naïve and misinformed about politics can you be if you think that's what's happening here? Please don't tell me that you grizzled DC reporters are that pathetically unaware of how politics is actually played.
The "centrist" Democratic senators and congressman should more accurately be called "corporatist" Democrats. There is nothing conservative about being against more compe ion in the free market, which is what the public option does. But that is certainly in the best interests of the existing corporations - to limit compe ion. There is all the difference in the world between being a capitalist and being a corporatist.
I get why the politicians are corporatist. Those are the guys who pay their bills, fund their elections and allow them to hold on to their power. That's no big mystery. That's exactly the battle we were waiting for in trying to do healthcare reform. What I don't get is why the media goes along with this theater?
What's the motivation of Politico and the Washington Post to help the healthcare industry fight back against Obama's proposals by: a) painting the effort as failing and losing momentum (if this idea sticks, maybe Obama will panic and just get reform done without a public option - which is exactly what the industry wants) b) pretending that the "centrist" politicians are on the level and totally unconcerned about where they get so much of their political funding?
It leads to the same question we unfortunately run into about the media so often - are they incompetent or complicit? The Washington Post healthcare salons give you a sense of why they might be financially motivated to play ball. But I can't get myself to believe that they are that craven and compromised. Maybe I'm being sadly naïve.
I tend to think that they suffer from DC bubble disease. They have forgotten that they are supposed to challenge politicians. They have been captured by the power interests in the capital and they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They have become convinced that politicians generally mean well and the only acceptable way to challenge a politician is if you have an equal and opposite politician demanding that you do (because presumably he must mean well in offering up this challenge -- after all, it is not a legitimate opinion if it is not offered up by someone in power in Washington).
There is one more layer here. If one side is being bought by corporate interests and their opposition to another politician is not genuine or based on principle, you must not under any cir stances let the public know what game is actually being played...
ROFL. Ah yes, the government will offer a subsidized program and it will be considered "free market...compe ion." Deconstructionism at its finest.There is nothing conservative about being against more compe ion in the free market, which is what the public option does.
Naaaaah, it's doable to compete against an en y not interested in profit and who can subsidize themselves through the printing of dead presidents.
lulz
LOL...What's Wrong with the Media?
What's right about it?
The mass media is propaganda machine used by the public to disillusion itself and indoctrinate the new into it's belief of what a society should be. From fashion to opinion to politics, every person is brainwashed to some extent. Coca-cola is tasty, drugs are bad, low-rise pants are cool, enact this bill to protect the children.
Plus drama is a top seller. There's so much money you can extract by being a condescending .
The media has not even dissected the public option plan or explained how it would really work.
It's sad, but I don't think many understand that the government will subsidize the public option plan driving the cost so low that it will drive private compe ion out of business, and so everybody will eventually be on the government plan. Maybe they don't understand the word subsidize or how it works, and how the government just keeps printing money they don't have to subsidize plans like this.
It didn't drive private compe ion out of business in France, Switzerland, Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc etc etc. In all those systems there's a public option and private insurance is still available, alive and well.
NBADan, count me a skeptic. How are we going to grow the government by a third and still have a dollar at the end of the day? We can't sustain Social Security. How long before it goes bankrupt? Before the US system does?
80 billion is a drop in the bucket.
"subsidize the public option plan driving the cost so low that it will drive private compe ion out of business"
"private compe ion"?
You prefer to continue subidizing the private insurance cartels/local monopolies that suck $200B+ in overhead from your pocket?
Regarding this pres. news conference: Why isn't anyone connecting the increasing cost of healthcare with the fear of liability lawsuits? No one is bringing this up in the entire pres news conference. This is HUGE! So we want to reinvent the entire wheel because we aren't willing to control frivilous lawsuits - or implement tort reform? Texas implemented tort reform and it helped TEXAS!
Furthermore, now we are looking at all government associated health plans to provide mandatory abortion as a HEALTH BENEFIT that we will all be paying for. If a church or a business does not cooperate then they can expect to pay an 8% penalty tax! NO conscience exclusion allowed! I find this reprehensible. What we will have is the equivalent of a government bailout for the struggling abortion industry.
Churches are exempt from much federal regulation (COBRA, HIPAA) - I bet they'll be excluded from this as well.
Again, you can't say it would drive the private companies out of business, while simultaneously claim that the service will be horrible.
If the service is horrible, then private companies will spring up that will provide shorter wait times, etc etc; they'll just be prohibitively expensive for anyone middle class or below.
How my point will make more sense than yours in an arguement, after this break...
The media is out for money and thats it, why we should expect anything more is beyond me. Don't trust them, don't watch them any more than you need to to. Oh, and "subsidized" health care will quickly become more of a cluster than Vietnam, Iraq and Social Security combined.
How is that for being dramatic
This can be viewed on different angles:
- From a political standpoint, I would argue they're picking their fights. Right now, it's head on against the insurance cos. Any extra lobbying group you add (ie:trial lawyers) makes it less likely to help them move the legislation through. I'm sure pharma is in there somewhere too, I just haven't had the time to gloss over the entire legislation to see how it affects them.
- If you're a conspiracy theorist, or Wild Cobra, or both, you will be quick to remind everyone that Obama is a lawyer himself. It's a matter of helping his buddies.
I actually agree tort reform is necessary as part of any reform, however, I don't think putting Texas as the poster child really helps, since it really hasn't brought down the cost of care in that state.
Do you actually have any article supporting this? I haven't heard anything about something like that.
I believe the reform did help the state significantly... The effects of that legislation however were somewhat muddled after the influx of so many hurricane-displaced residents from Louisiana.
I'll pull up the article when I find it again... it wasn't on my current machine...
Suggesting that the reason centrist Democrats are opposing the health care bill as its stands because they are corporate s would not be journalism, unless there were some do entary proof of that to report.
Basically, what you have with the truthout writer is a blinkered ideologue who thinks his ideas are "truth," so if anyone expresses another idea, it must be a lie. If a politician has a different agenda, he must be craven or corrupt. If the media doesn't call him craven and corrupt, then they must be complicit.
Such is American political discourse. Let the country go to .
I mean there is almost no liberal outlet for news commentary or editorializing
Well, you can find any sort of numbers, but if you simply go by cost of insurance premiums, it simply didn't have much of an effect at all. This is something we discussed in another thread.
Just curious. Thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
