Why Americans Are Miseducated About Health Care Reform

Last week, I interviewed Trudy Lieberman, a veteran journalist, who has reported on health care and consumer issues for over thirty years. I asked Lieberman to grade the media's performance in explaining the issue of reform to the American people.

Initially, she gave the media a C-. Then she seemed to rethink her overly sunny estimation and recalculated. She concluded, "I would give them an F."

Lieberman's main beef is the way the media has been covering the health care reform debate like a horse race, or as she put it, the "Who's up; who's down? Who's winning today? Does Pelosi have the votes? What's going to be the game-changer? What should Baucus do because he can't get the votes out of his committee?"

A media consumed with tracking Obama's popularity has failed to educate the American citizenry about the key elements of the debate. Ask any 30 Americans to define Obama's plans for subsidies, mandates, insurance exchanges, or the public option, and you're likely to hear 30 different answers. That's because the media has been reporting on health care issues as if gossiping about the conflicting personalities crowded in any high school cafeteria.

Though many so-called journalists are guilty of this crime, I offer ABC's Rick Klein as merely the latest example of this watered down breed of journalism. On his blog, Klein goes on for some length about the various superficial aspects of the reform debate with which we all are well-acquainted. Fasten your Waders. We're going in.

Did you know the campaign is over, and President Obama won? Well, Rick clears up any confusion regarding who the president is in his first paragraph. He transitions smoothly into some meaningless gossip about how things are "getting personal" in the brawl for reform. As proof of this, he cites President Obama during his interview on 60 Minutes. "You know, I intend to be president for a while, and once this bill passes, I own it ... I'm the one who's going to be held responsible." ... Me-ow ... ? I guess?

Rick promptly dives into some poll numbers, the favorite past time of desk jockey journalists. This is the horse race aspect of coverage that Lieberman detests so profoundly. Is Obama up this week? Did Joe Wilson hurt him? It's hard to hear anything over the breathy excitement with which Rick quotes ABC Polling Director Gary Langer. Why interview a health care expert when one can shove a microphone in the face of a man whose skill set entails reading numbers aloud?

Just in case you weren't taking Rick very seriously by now, he drops this bomb: "Bottom line: right now, voters are almost exactly where they were before the speech," an almost breathtakingly uneducational remark from George Stephanopoulos, who I'm being told is a very serious man whose thoughts matter.

Rick then types out more polls for you to read.

Then he writes about tea parties protesters.

He quotes someone at Politico on more horse race matters.

He brings up Lehman Brothers (??)

In typical dismissive fashion, Rick devotes little time to the public option. In fact, it probably would have been better for everyone is he had devoted zero time to it, since this is how he phrased the critical matter

Back on health care, the public option continues what looks like a long march into oblivion.

Are we all learning yet?

While no attempt is made to educate his readers about what a public option means, Rick does quote people who think the public option is a waste of time. He writes, "If this is about getting even a single GOP vote: 'I urged the president to take the public option off the table,' said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine."

Progressives are always told that we're not being pragmatic with our public option demands, but in a world where the Democrats have a majority, why are they wasting any time trying to mollify the GOP? It seems insane for the Democrats to devote time and energy trying to placate individuals with whom they have irreconcilable differences in ideologies. Appeasing the Republicans by sacrificing the public option will infuriate and betray the Democratic base, which will result in lost seats next election.

No matter. We return to our very serious journalist. Did you know all this craziness is because of the stupid Progressives? Rick cites Bloomberg's Al Hunt, "The fate of the Obama health-care initiative could rest in large part with some members of his party's left wing, who threaten to let the perfect be the enemy of the good." You see, when Republicans scream and cry for what they want, it's called politics, but when Progressives fight for the public option, they're being obstructionists.

But just in case all of this seems really one-sided and unfair, Rick reminds us that Progressives aren't always unreasonable, shrill, hysterical ruiners. He cites Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, who is "offering the prevailing view in House Democratic leadership" when he says, "There will be some threats, but ultimately most liberals will go along." Hooray! It's good to know -- once they're through playing make-believe -- Progressives will shut up and vote right.

Without pausing to explain what "triggers" mean (because why bother once he's hit such an amazing stride?) Rick quotes Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La, "I can support potentially a fallback [public option], but only if the private sector is allowed and given a great opportunity to get this right." It's about time a politician fought for the private sector. Those folk have had it too rough for too long. Snowe concurs. "We'll be using the co-op as an option at this point, as the means for injecting competition into the process."

Again, without defining "public option," "triggers," or "co-ops," Rick muses if these kinds of "compromises" will "get them in the clear." It's not important to define the particulars of the bill. All that matters is who's winning.

Rick unironically transitions into a paragraph about intellectual honesty.

He quotes Politico's Ben Smith, "Obama seems to lack one item that most presidents find helpful to have in their White House tool box: Fear. On the left and on the right, interest groups and members of Congress have been eagerly enjoying the rewards -- publicity, negotiating leverage -- of challenging the president or dissenting from his policies." Here again, the left and the right are presented as two equal halves. However, I cannot recall the last time a leftist interest group held a bill hostage in the same way interest groups representing the pharmaceutical and health care industries have this time.

Rick writes about ads and Joe Wilson.

Rick writes about Afghanistan. (??)

He closes with Ted Kennedy's memoir release date. (??)

With this blog entry serving as a model, no one should be surprised that Americans are more misinformed and confused than ever about the health care debate. When a hefty chunk of the population thinks Obama is a socialist, it's almost impossible to educate them about things they should actually know like how the final health care bill with affect their subsidies, age-rating, deductibles, fast-rising premiums, and co-payments. Those media outlets that are trying to educate citizens should be applauded (Good work, Kaiser News and Columbia Journalism Review).

However, the overall education process is made especially difficult when the media behaves in such a disgracefully unhelpful manner as ABC's Rick Klein demonstrated today.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[DennyCrane]

As much as I blame the media for keeping Americans misinformed, I think the root of the problem is the people themselves. Most people, especially on the right, have their minds made up and will only accept as fact anything that lines up with their ideology. They will reject anything that contradicts it. Here's an example. The right doesn't trust government and yet they have no problem with the government eavesdropping on their cell phone conversations. Why? Because we trust the government to fight terrorists. But trusting them to provide health care? No way. This is the kind of idiocy we're dealing with out there. Republicans are too narrow-minded to ever accept things like global warming or evolution.

[mikefina]

If there had been coherence from the White House, and an honest brokering of information from Congressional leadership, perhaps the media wouldn't be left with 'keeping score', and instead could craft a meningful narrative.

I wonder, if over the course of 30 straight days, the reporter were to ask President Obama what HIS plan for subsidies, mandates, public options and exchanges if SHE would get fewer than 30 different aswers?

This job has been botched by ALL players, none more than the Chief Executive. The media may deserve a good thrashing, but they shouldn't be first in line for a trip to the woodshed.

[JillQ]

It's not just Rick Klein- it's all of them.

On MSNBC, there's a new show called Dr. Nancy. I had thought she would be able to break down the health care reform details, but so far nothing. She devoted more time to Michael Jackson's "questionable death" than to the main issue of our time. How sad.

[rkfdred]

Since everyone isn't inclined to seek out the facts for themselves, they are subject to the info provided by the so called news media. There was a time when you listened to the news you didn't say he's a republican or democrat because the information provided was fair and balanced. Not so much today. Finding a fair and balanced news outlet is difficult and beyond most people's ability or desire. Many people like being spoon-fed misinformation which they later quote as fact. So much of the news today, particularly on cable, is entertainment. It is designed to be sensational, emotional and often less than honest - all in the name of ratings. Where are all the genuine reporters who truly care about factual reporting? Don't colleges give journalism degrees for the anymore?

[juhar]

Americans decided on November 4 2008 with their vote who they were going to believe for the next four years regardless of the election.

Any American that can't tell you what Obama and the Democrats want in the final healthcare reform bill is mentally incapable of knowing or has willfully chosen not to know or understand.

Once their favorite television new entertainers probably one of the usual suspects (Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly) tells them what they think - so thinks that person. Americans are BY CHOICE the laziest uninformed citizens in the world.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Crony Capitalist Corporate Media is not educating Americans to the issues that would benefit the American people instead of increasing Corporate Profits for their Corporate Allies with no restraint?
Why would they do that?

I'm shocked...­SHOCKED!!!

[Billl]

President Obama should allow what he calls, “governments’ unfair advantages”, to be used for consumers of health care, employers, and taxpayers to lower costs while providing health care for free to everyone choosing to use, a sales tax funded, and public health care system.

Instead the President is allowing the health care industry to use “governments’ unfair advantages” to increase their profits by forcing consumers and employers to involuntarily spend money to purchase insurance and services.

Government could form sales tax funded public hospitals to provide free public health care to everyone choosing to use it.

Employers who select public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have and further involvement in health care.

The public system would coexist with private systems that would operate without government funding, mandates, or interventions.

Affordable health care must have cost controls on both the way funding to pay for services is raised and administered, and the way care and hospital facilities are operated.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA has for years.

Going back and forth between free public, and user purchased private care, would allow unlimited choices, ultimate freedom, and always free public care would be available when it is needed.

OMB would see hundreds of billions in annual savings.

[jsarets]

The media also exploits our unfortunate urge to apply brand labels to ourselves -- liberal, moderate, conservative, democrat, independent, republican, etc. -- by constantly instructing us about what people or our self-imposed brand identity should think about various issues.

For example, the media often claims that "liberal democrats" support a public option, but "moderates" don't. Most polls show a majority of Americans (or close to it) support a public option, but the media tells us that we can't call ourselves "moderates" if we do.

...Not to mention that fact that what the American media calls "conservative", the rest of the world almost universally calls "liberal" or "neoliberal". The liberal/co­nservative branding in American politics is rooted in the cultural polarization of the civil rights movement in the early 1960s.