My Response To House Republicans' Criticism Of Our Upcoming Health Care Special

The following letter is my response to the members of the Congressional Media Fairness Caucus, who have criticized ABC News' upcoming special on President Obama's health care plan (see below).

June 23, 2009

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith
Chairman, Media Fairness Caucus
Congress of the United States
2409 Russell House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Smith:

Thank you for your letter of today's date concerning our planned coverage tomorrow of health care reform in America. I am pleased that you agree that the subject deserves extensive and careful coverage. This is precisely what ABC News has given healthcare over many years; it is what we plan to continue tomorrow.

Unfortunately, you have found it appropriate to criticize a program that has not yet aired. Contrary to your assertions, this will not be "slanted" in any way - much less a "day-long infomercial" or "in-kind free advertising" as you allege. It will be a thoughtful, respectful, and probing discussion of some of the issues raised by the calls for health-care reform. We will include a variety of perspectives coming from private individuals asking the President questions and taking issue with him, as they see fit. We have heard already at some length (on ABC News and other outlets) from politicians and professional health care lobbyists, and there will be ample time to hear from them throughout the policy debate. I can see no reason why we should not hear tomorrow instead from some of the Americans most directly affected by the plans being discussed.

Sadly, some inside government and within the private sector see every issue as material for a sort of political high theatre, to be used to gain votes or energize political bases or simply to raise funds. I would have thought that a subject as important as the health care received by the American people would rise above this sorry spectacle. Our citizens need and deserve more. We are proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry or stylized, bipolar debate; we are proud to work for a network and a company willing to devote valuable airtime to serious consideration of a subject so worthy.

Finally, on a note of personal privilege, I entirely reject your attack on my colleague, Dr. Timothy Johnson. Dr. Johnson has established himself over many years as the foremost medical editor in television news. His knowledge about health care reform is surpassed only by his commitment to the truth and to fairness.

As for Linda Douglass, she did indeed cover Congress for ABC News. But she left us nearly four years ago to become a fellow at New York University and to work at the Rockefeller Foundation.

I do appreciate your taking the time to express your views, which I will always welcome.

Sincerely,

David

The letter above also appears on ABCNews.com.

The letter from the Congressional Media Fairness Caucus:

Congressional Media Fairness Caucus Letter To ABC News -

Comments

[WilliamP]

"Sadly, some inside government and within the private sector see every issue as material for a sort of political high theatre, to be used to gain votes or energize political bases or simply to raise funds."

Very true. It's amazing that people are politicizing the issue even when many Americans can't afford healthcare--just to get the support of those who can and those who provide healthcare.

[Aubear]

can anyone tell me why unions will be exempted from taxation on health insurance, they aren't the only ones who voted for this government.

[impik]

Republicans should be happy. The whole program was anti heath care, with Charles Gibson leading the way with some of the most ridiculous neo-cons talking points. Not to mention that the discussion about the public plan was pushed to midnight.

[mamacat]

The fact that the President of ABC is posting here is big.

However, I am not at all surprised that the health care issue has turned into political theatre, as he put it. After so many and continueing years of the culture wars nonsense - as if Liberals belonged to a different culture - this should be no surprise at all. Whenever the right-wing can't or won't discuss the issues honestly, they start throwing mud in an attempt to obfuscate. Same old thing.

[hasheville]

Speaking of other opinions...what about the voices for single payer? These Republicans are just bullies who smear anyone who doesn't toe the line they want.

[baddadd49]

no that would be dems just ask Palin.

[Strza]

I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be able to grasp the nuance of the question considering there is a verb AND a noun. Talk about gotcha questions!

[josephebacon]

I don't know why those Republicans objected to a broadcast that was so clearly slanted to their do-nothing view.

[patriccio]

It is late as the "town hall meeting" has already taken place. Give me a break on republicans complaining about ABC. Charles Gibson could be from Fox central casting, and he is the most out of touch news person with respect to the majority of the country of any. How can we forget his poorest performance at the New Hampshire debate. Then who cares anyway as ABC does not care about informing America or they would not have had so many commercials interrupting the discussion.

Gibson did not moderate he just read republican and lobbyist talking points challenging Obama. It is a shame that people like Gibson should make the money they do, and folks who are contributing to the society and sharing have to listen to him protecting his right to make insane amounts of money for what he thinks he does.

[William1950]

It seems so obvious... The economy of almost every state in the union is straining under the weight of medicare and medicaid.... The cost of health care is the overwhelming 800 pound gorilla in the room today.....
A non-profit, single payer system is the ONLY viable way to fix the mess we are in.
All Negative reasons given against such a system are put out by insurance and drug companies that have a standing vested financial interest in keeping our grossly infair system in place.
I saw an insurance representative in some press conference today saying that they would be willing to change their practice of rejecting coverage due to pre-existing conditions... big of them.
As far as I am concerned I wouldn't care if all insurance companies went down in flames. They have a legally protected strong arm business, we are forced by law to purchase insurance and they can reject, deny, and otherwise squirm out of their contractural obligations... they have more lawers and more money and more time to fight than their clients,
and we are supposed to trust them.... they really care for us.... American Health Care is the best in the world... yeah right.

[gs425]

Is that you Micheal Moore?

[lcdbsez]

gs --

Is that you, Karl Rove???

BTW, which insurance mafia do YOU have healthcare from, hmmmmm?

And, it's "Michael" -- not as you misspelled it, duhhhhh.

[epiphany1234]

Why did ABC air such an adversarial prime time "town meeting"? At first, I praised the network for proceeding with this discussion, but Charlie Gibson & Diane Sawyer t(people who don't worry about health care) took a clearly negative stance in this so called discussion. They do not want public universal care, and neither did the so-called mixed audience of ordinary Americans. Every question put to Obama assumed the worst. They assumed we as country can't pay for universal health care; they assumed the government would become Big Brother in our personal lives; they assumed interference by the government between doctor and patient; they assumed we in the USA can't reform health care like other countries have done; they assumed no end-of-life empathy from the government. They never brought up the apparent satisfaction with government run Medicare, or social security as a counterpoint. If this was a chance for the public to address the president, why was an official with the AMA--an organization opposed to health reform--given the opportunity to question him first? Didn't the AMA already have their chance?

Where were the PROPONENTS of public health care in the audience? This show was nothing more than anti-health care propoganda perpetrated by ABC

[rf-hawaii]

The proponents were 70%+ of the viewers.

[littlepeople]

I totally agree.....­.Sawyer's/­Gibson's lead-in to discussion about public option sounded ominous. Gosh, would we dare even tolerate a government connection to health care reform? Frankly, I can't even tolerate listening to this crap anymore. If these people screw this up, this country will descend even further into a third world status.

[elefante]

ABC special is a propaganda piece. Pure and simple. The Obama administration should be forced to pay for the air time out of his re-election fund.

[gs425]

I agree with you David and trust you will present the facts in an unbiased report that will hopefully rival the the sensational job you and Miss Sawyer did with 20/20's "If I Only Had A Gun".

[doober]

It might be interesting to have representatives from Canada,France Sweden and Germany on the panel..All these countries have universal health care payed for by taxes..Health care for profit is not an option..

[littlepeople]

Yes, yes, yes......good idea! The idiots on the right always throw this out without receiving any rebuttal. Let the American people find out first hand how the rest of the industrialized world provide health care in a responsible way.

[Mozart123]

A Republican a day *will* keep the doctor away.

[joekerr]

I do not understand what all the hooplah is about. If I was to go interview Joe Shmoe about his plan to wax every car in the neighborhood, would I have to go get a dissenting opinion? And how exactly would that enrich the dialogue? It seems that many of the major news networks think that an American can't make up their own minds. Personally, I like to hear what someone has to say and make up my own opinion based on what I heard. I don't really need the foremost leading expert in whale spit to come on the show and repeat what I just heard and explain it to me. And maybe the administration decided to go with this particular network because they wanted to lay out their plan cogently, without a load of gotcha questions. For example, I can just hear some pundit now saying "Some people are saying (most commonly used opener for gotcha questions btw) that a public health care system is a step toward socialism, what do you have to say in response to these statements?". Those kind of questions are misleading and only slow down the consumption of real information, like how much will it cost, how will we pay for it, do we need it, etc. The false outrage is only because of the loss of an opportunity to sensationalize the debate.

[Thornton]

joekerr, the hoopla would be about this.

Say that Joe Schmoe has the most influence on who we end up hiring to wax all the cars. And I, as one of the neighbors, will be responsible for paying some of the charges. And a national TV network is going to do a whole show on car waxing from Joe Shmoe's office. And none of Joe Shmoe's competitors have been invited to participate. And the network will not accept any advertising from Joe Shmoe's competitors. Now I suspect that the network will ask some of the neighbors to come on the show and ask any question they want. But I'm pretty sure the predominant message after two hours will be that Shmoe is the best car waxer ever.

I know some of my neighbors don't pay much attention to the potential costs or quality of car waxing and if they were to see this show, it is likely to disproportionally steer them towards Shmoe unless Joe's competitor has equal time.

Now if Joe wants to go buy two hours of ad time and label it as such, I'm fine with that. I appreciate your ability to look at all things with a curious and skeptical mind but many will just come across the network's Shmoe show and be unduly influenced by it. And I will have to pay for, what I believe, will be Joes unreasonable charges.

[themuse]

You are describing Faux News. The opposition already has a dedicated propaganda outlet that provides 24/7 attacks and misinformation about the issue.

[joekerr]

But you are talking about the 4th estate catering to the lowest common denominator. Conforming to mediocrity is not the job of the press. Nor is it to "dumb" down or offer an opposing viewpoint in all things. I'm not sure when this trend became some sort of actual rule but it seems arbitrary and not grounded in realism. The press is not a debate chamber and should not be treated as such. Secondly you say that simply because Joe holds vast influence, it changes the rules simply because of his position. I disagree with this notion as it implies that some people are more important than others and directly contradicts your statement that all voices be accorded equal opportunity. But don't get me entirely wrong, I do agree that perhaps plenty of people will take away the wrong impression from the show, but it seems to me that the other networks have ample opportunity to run their own stories with dissenting views. And if you cannot be an informed citizen then perhaps you will never be able to participate fully anyway. I for one am sick and tired of being dragged down because most Americans as a whole do not take the time to fully digest information and give nuanced responses instead of gut reactions.

[pakaal]

If it wasn't for the fact you're complaining about the ABC coverage from a "conservative" viewpoint, I'd almost imagine you were coming out in support of the Fairness Doctrine, which as we know, the Right hates with a passion.

[masanf]

Yeah, it will be so thoughtful that the other side of the debate was not allowed to have a representative present at a meeting held in the White House. Who but a total paranoiac could possibly believe that there was any bias at all going on here?

[Thornton]

I'm always amazed at the pro-forma response anyone on the right gets when they state the media tilts more to the left than the right.

"Yeah well what about Fox News!!!!!! It's an arm of the Republican party!!!!"

Well, let me admit, no, let me shout from the roof tops. I agree, Fox News definitely approaches things from the viewpoint of the right.

Please, let's all of us be honest. The cumulative effect of the media ends up on the left side of the ledger. We, on the right, can live with it.

The complaint in this case is different. It doesn't matter that I haven't seen the content of the show yet. It is improper to have a network program originating from the White House focusing on a polarizing matter without equal representation from the opposition party.

I'm fine even if the program is 100% skewed towards one side. As long as it originates with an entity other than a government entity.

I hate to bring up the name because I know what a feeding frenzy it starts but consider if the local Fox affiliate in Anchorage announced a two hour program on the subject of abortion originating from the Governor's residence in Alaska. Before anyone saw the program or knew what the content was to be, half the nation would be apoplectic.

And, I would agree.


And please, don't let this post start a furious round of Palin, daughter pregnancy, Willow, Bristol, Letterman, yada, yada, yada comments.

[Phreejazz]

"Please, let's all of us be honest. The cumulative effect of the media ends up on the left side of the ledger. We, on the right, can live with it."

I have to disagree here. I would even give you the point that what gets reported on gets skewed by those reporting it, who are journalists, who tend to be left-leaning. But that ignores the biggest element: the decisions on what gets reported on. THOSE decisions have almost invariably slanted towards the right, especially here in the U.S. Just compare what gets covered by our mass media to what gets covered in just about any other reputable source in the world (including the BBC) over any length of time and the slant becomes glaringly obvious. Oh, and I can't find the citation at the moment, will keep looking... but one study found that across all major outlets republicans are invited on for commentary more than democrats, and by a decent margin. obref: the "Censored" series of books put out annually by the Censorship Project.

[Thornton]

If I see that study and determine that it comes from a unbiased source, I will accept it, but frankly, be very surprised. My common sense gut check thinks its uinlikely. Not trying to be flippant here-just that for most people, that initial feeling in your gut is 99% of the time, correct).

And I would definitely challenge you on the reputation of the BBC. It is commonly known as one of the most left leaning media outlets in the western world. I spent all of my youth and many of my early adult years in Canada and had few choices for news consumption. Like the UK with BBC, the leading and overwhelmingly distributed news media was the CBC.

I can tell you from experience, that their presentation was decidedly left leaning. In the U.S., we all know that different networks slant different ways, but our choices are many.