MSM's Scary Impotence When Faced with Death Panels

A week or so ago I suggested that the health care debate was a great opportunity for the beleaguered mainstream media -- newspapers, network news -- to prove "in a slow and deliberate way" it was still relevant.

There is so much disinformation flying around at the moment wouldn't it be great to have someone in the media, who had at their disposal the time and resources, step in and separate fact from fiction. And we mean really separate it in a slow and deliberate way.

Have they managed to do so in the interim? If they have there's certainly no evidence of it. Howie Kurtz hits the nail on the head in today's column:

In many ways, news organizations have risen to the occasion; in others they have become agents of distortion. But even when they report the facts, they have had trouble influencing public opinion...Perhaps journalists are no more trusted than politicians these days, or many folks never saw the knockdown stories. But this was a stunning illustration of the traditional media's impotence.

Emphasis mine. What's especially scary about this "stunning illustration" is that Kurtz isn't suggesting the MSM didn't give Death Panel coverage its best shot; he highlights a slew of occasions where both news anchors and reporters attempted to get the facts out. But mostly to little avail. The death panel meme is still raging. Details of what the health care bill actually contains have yet to permeate the masses. (Could you explain it if you were asked to?) Was it merely too complicated a story to cover properly? Is that even an acceptable line of argument to take? The answer is no.

As noted, Kurtz suggests that many outlets did try to dive in and debunk the rumors. The fact of the matter is that they have clearly failed. The only thing worse than the MSM not devoting the time and space that it should to this story, is the MSM devoting the time and space and not having any influence on the public's understanding of the issue at hand. If we can't rely on news institutions to rationally explain the complicated (and extremely important) issues of the day in a way that will reach people, than why do we need them at all?

Plummeting ad sales and paid content may be at the core of debate over whether traditional media will survive, but it's becoming ever more apparent that the death panels are just the latest example of whether traditional media deserves to survive, and it raises the question: if the MSM were to disappear, would anyone notice?

Read more here.

Follow Glynnis MacNicol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mediaite

Comments

[Eclectic Radical]

There is a fundamentally important fact to remember.

The majority of the people who are committed to their opposition to health care are registered Republicans possessed of the firm belief that the MSM is fundamentally and radically liberal despite all evidence CNN (center-right), MSNBC (decidedly center-left, once one excludes Olbermann and Maddow), and the broadcast networks (all owned by decidedly moderate-t­o-neoconse­rvative corporations, despite Disney's pretty laudable stance on gay rights) may actually offer when really watched.

And that is the issue. The people who believe everything Rush says on the radio, or who think anyone on Fox News but Shepard Smith is actually a 'journalist', are not watching the rest of the news media at all. Which means the only relatively unfiltered source of journalism they are afforded is Shepard Smith sitting alone amongst a crowd of right wing talking heads in the guise of 'news anchors.' And Shep is too 'nice' and mild a guy to balance all that propaganda out by his dewy-eyed lonesome.

[tompoe]

There is no MSM. Corporate media is the operative term. Stop using MSM, and you'll attract more readers.

[Buffyboy]

Right. First you have to define the problem.

[LeeCalif]

I feel it comes down to ad dollars and where they come from along with total corporate control.

CBS has also demonstrated in a big way, what they are willing to do to those who attempt
to commit journalism. Ask Dan Rather.

[Eclectic Radical]

Brilliantly stated.

[creolechild]

Part II --

"The message will be unmistakable: caravan with us to Washington and help make a public demonstration of support for Single Payer Health Care that will be heard around the world."

"Imagine..­."

"Thousands of cars pulling into the nation's capital for a protest on the White House lawn. The sidewalks are filled with supporters carrying signs in support of the Mad As Hell Doctors who have captured the imagination and the ignited the passion of their fellow citizens. We wave and honk at the camera crews, as do the endless line of cars behind us, as we wend our way toward the White House. On every antenna, on the backside of every car, and flapping like flags from sidewalk supporters, is the symbol of this new movement: the White Ribbon."

[creolechild]

Part I --

So far, this appears to be the most coordinated effort to demonstrate for the single-payer option. Many of us were focused on September 13th as the date to demonstrate in Washington. Maybe we should throw our support behind these physicians' efforts. Please help me spread the word.

If you click on the link their website it provides additional information, a sign-up for the events, and a map that indicates the cities they will stop in enroute to Washington.

http://www.madashelldoctors.com/

"On September 8th, a caravan will cross America to deliver a clear and simple message to our elected officials in Washington­."

"On September 8, 2009 a group of dedicated Oregon physicians will take the message of Universal Health Care "on the road" in a wrapped and branded Motor Home headed for Washington D.C. Our cross-country mission: to stop in big cities and whistle stops alike, conducting pre-booked, local and national media appearances for a curious press. Every move we make along the way will be recorded on camera and then edited and uploaded to the internet that same day. This will allow our Mad As Hell Doctors Tour to leverage the edited video segments on social networking web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, et al. In this way, our effort becomes an unprecedented hybrid of reality television and political activism that offers people the opportunity to follow us, in real time, as our story unfolds."

[LeeCalif]

I sent to MikeMalloy.com

Perhaps he'll announce.

And to Bradblog.com

[averygard]

It has all become about sensationalism. Which sounds sexier (and easier for the dumbed-down masses to understand­)--"dealth panels" or "single-payer system"? Since the former is more interesting and will get more publicity from everyone else, why should they bother to fact-check?