Yesterday, I took a look at One Day In The Incoherent Life Of Health Care Co-Ops, as the media endeavored to explain what a health care co-op is, how it would work, and whether or not it would be more or less effective than the public option. In the end, I concluded:
So here's what the media knows about co-ops. If they exist, they are effective, unless they are ineffective. They are not socialized, government-run health care, unless they are. They provide an alternative to the public option...unless they don't. Proponents like them because if you ignore the many ways health-care co-ops are entirely unlike "credit unions" and "rural electrification," you can make the case that they are totally like "credit unions" and "rural electrification." And even if the White House follows along with the inane political calculus of "bipartisanship," and substitutes co-ops for the "public option" for the sake of earning Republican votes, chances are no Republicans will vote for it.
And that was all well and good! Even still, something was missing. I really felt like it was hard to adequately express the way the media behaved, all day long. It wasn't just that the material facts of health care co-ops eluded them. It was the very real sense that health care co-ops only confused and enraged and depressed your beloved media personalities -- like cavemen, and the sheer terror they must have felt the first time they witnessed a solar eclipse or encountered fire.
Luckily for us, I was able to call upon the crackerjack video mash-up skills of our own David Stemler -- whose previous contributions include Sarah Palin's Resignation In A Minute. Dave was able to survey the entire day's worth of co-op coverage and distill it down to its essence: two-and-a-half minutes of complete bafflement.
We are grateful, Mr. Stemler. Please to enjoy!
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]