The Health Reform Fiasco Is an 'Old' Media Triumph -- and a Red Flag for Democrats
Last February, I wrote a post about President Obama versus the conventional wisdom machine, arguing that "the assumption the new presidency would transform the political process, usher in an era of unprecedented citizen empowerment and decimate the old conventional wisdom-making machinery, has been undermined by the reality of entrenched power structures, deep-seated rivalries, die-hard habits and Beltway business as usual."
I've been making some version of that argument since Democrats took power. My fundamental case is that political and policy battles are primarily about messaging, about shaping public perceptions; that despite widespread Internet triumphalism in the wake of the 2008 campaign, 'old' media mechanisms are not only relevant, but potent; and that Obama's victory was predominantly the result of a well-conceived and executed traditional campaign strategy (i.e. creating effective positive and negative message frames and adhering to them).
On the first premise, that all political endeavors -- whether campaigns or policy rollouts -- are primarily about messaging, I discussed the online implications in a December '08 essay:
The pyramid of Internet political functions consists of message (communications), money (fundraising) and mobilization. Atop that pyramid sits communications. Message drives money and triggers mobilization. Devoid of a compelling message to spur their use, the most advanced web tools will lie fallow. The impetus to use technology is always external to the technology; the impulse to connect and contribute begins with the inspiration to do so and the inspiration derives from the message.
I expanded on the second premise (that established messaging tactics and mechanisms are still a force to be contended with) in the February post referenced above:
A striking fact about the current political environment is that despite the ground-breaking Democratic victory on November, the new administration is dealing with an oddly familiar political brew: the "liberal media" mantra is rekindled, conservative talk radio (i.e. anti-liberal radio) is resurgent, Rush Limbaugh is more relevant than ever, Ann Coulter is once again doing the network rounds, and if online commentary over the past month is any indication, many progressives still feel disconnected from the levers of power.... The dynamics and tensions of the past decade remain firmly in play: rightwing noise machine (albeit denuded) versus progressive activists, old-school pundits and politicians versus online powerhouses, netroots versus DLC, frustrated outsiders versus back-scratching insiders, partisanship versus bi/post-partisanship, media versus bloggers, and so on. Democrats would do well to note how unpredictably the Conventional Wisdom Machine has operated (or how predictably for those who are less sanguine about the fungibility of a web-fueled grassroots campaign).
On the third premise, that Obama won because he mastered old-school politics, I wrote:
The truth is that the Obama campaign was a triumph of integration more than technological innovation. It was the wildly successful marriage of time-tested political strategies and tactics, executed with acumen and discipline, seamlessly combined with cutting-edge technology and tied together with an empowering grassroots message. With a brilliant candidate at the helm. That, in itself, was innovative.
Six months later, the health reform battle cements my view on all three points. Setting aside strategic errors by the Democrats (and there have been several in this fight), just look at how reform opponents have outgunned the White House using town halls, cable news, newspaper editorials, Freepers, Drudge, talk radio and chain emails. If I close my eyes, I'm transported back to my days on the Kerry campaign and the summer of Swift Boats, Purple Heart Band-Aids and rightwing attack machine antics. It's as though a half decade of technological advances disappeared in the blink of an eye. Forget Facebook and Twitter, it's all about Fox and MSNBC and CNN replaying images of angry protesters at town hall meetings railing against 'government takeovers.' It's about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spreading fear and fury. It's about anonymous emails zipping across the country, distorting the facts and sowing confusion. It's about rightwing pundits setting the terms of the debate by foisting radical ideas on the public.
Paradoxically, the attempts by Democrats to counter all this by sending emails to Obama's list and creating campaign-style fact-checking websites seem almost quaint by comparison. When a woman at a town hall spoke about "awakening a sleeping giant," she may as well have been alluding to the old media tools and techniques that have been dismissed by pundits and tech evangelists as anachronistic in the Internet age. Simply put, despite volumes of cyber-ink about the left's online prowess, and despite Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the right can apparently dominate the national conversation using the same outlets they relied on five and ten years ago.
So to my fellow digerati: it's time to admit that the communications landscape, at least in politics, isn't necessarily tilted in favor of new media. The health reform showdown is powerful evidence that the much-touted online advantage of the left, if not a chimera, is certainly questionable when it comes to major political confrontations.
Perhaps that's one reason for the diminished turnout of mainstream reporters at Netroots Nation -- the creeping sense that the left's online muscle has taken a major hit with the health reform message wars and that the balance of power between old and new media is shifting back toward the former.
That's only going to get more pronounced with the ongoing co-opting of new media by the establishment, the increasing deployment by established media outlets of online tools, the advent of hybrid media outlets like the Politico, the continued preeminence of cable news as the agenda-setter for daily chatter, the use of YouTube to disseminate mainstream media content, and the explosive adoption of Twitter by Beltway reporters.
It's been fashionable in tech/political circles to think of the Internet as an establishment-slayer that destroys business models and shakes up the political landscape and to consider 2008 a watershed for citizen empowerment, but the more sober scenario is one where the establishment stops the bleeding, stabilizes, and reasserts its capacity to shape public perceptions. The health care battle bolsters the latter case.
This portends poorly for Democrats. If you've been fretting about Democratic prospects in 2010 and 2012, then you have every reason to be concerned now that we see how much mileage the right can get out of rickety 'old' media.
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Old media, new media, big deal. The real story is the democrats are bungling the job so huge so far. I hope they can pull it out. How on earth did they let things go slack so fast?
March on Washington for healthcare reform on Sept. 13th. Pass it along. The people united cannot be defeated.
But we're not united. We don't want what you're selling.
The biggest mistake is to get wrapped up in the way the message is transmitted.
People need to be more concerned about who the messenger is (get background on sources) and the content of the message.
Not an old media triumph or failure at all or a new media triumph or failure. None of it matters as long as the people aren't checking the background on the people telling them the things they're hearing or reading.
And it goes beyond just being able to read...to reading comprehension and understanding what has happened historically.
All this fiasco has proved is the level of corruption in the government and a population that doesn't know how to spell research...much less do any.
No matter what forum we use, we just don't do a very good job of explaining how this thing will work. If we even know how it will work. Maybe were asking for too much? Maybe we should slay this dragon one limb at a time. We could start with free prescription drugs. Now that is something I could explain to my 80 year old father when he asks how it will work for him. Well dad, you no longer have to pay $120 dollars a month for your Prevacid. It's free. "I'll vote for that" would be his response.
You mean "it's paid for by taxpayers".
It's certainly not "free".
I think you're right, you don't understand how this stuff works.
New media=young people. Great for electing a president, not so great for championing health care reform. Old media=older people. Great for obstructing change. It's that simple.
Well, we're all just obstructing federal neo-fascism. Unconstitutional neo-fascism.
Allow me to explain neo-facism
Neo-Fascists believe that the government is in perpetual conflict with the private economy whereby any failure of private business leads to an increase in government size, scope, power. Neo-Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state by destroying any opposition. Neo-Fascists attempt to suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the neo-fascist movement. Neo-Fascism supports class and race conflict, but blames capitalism for its creation and conservatives for exploiting the concept. In the economic sphere, many neo-fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism in which corporations are to fulfill a government specified duty to society while acting as a primary source of revenue, despite being crippled by government policies.
Neo-fascism is a post-World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. The term neo-fascist may apply to groups that express a specific admiration for Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism or any other fascist leader/state.
Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism (see definition), anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.
Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a politic epithet. Some post-World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination with fascist ideology and rituals.
Neo-fascist movements are more straight-forwardly right-wing than the pre-WWII movements, and have become intertwined with the radical right.[1][2]
Wikipedia
For the love of God, it's deep-SEEDED not deep-SEATED!!!
No. It's Deep Seated.
"Which is correct "deep-seeded" or "deep-seated"?
(Definitions)
Both Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and the OED2 (Complete) agree that the correct term is "deep-seated", having its seat far beneath the surface.
"Deep-seeded" does not have an entry in either dictionary.
http://www.yaelf.com/swot.shtml
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001815.html
In the words of George Carlin, "f*ck popular usage."
Metaphorically, deep-seeded makes more sense than deep-seated.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001815.html
when you install a mechanical device, you "seat" the device.
That's what it's referring to.
The effect of "new media" on the health care debate has been the same as on most issues - including the recent presidential campaign. The Internet is leading the way in a dilution of integrity. Too many sources with too little verification. Too many voices and too many agendas. We have a wider distribution of quantity amid an ever-thinning layer of quality of information.
The result is that most people distrust most of what they are hearing - and they are right to do so. Humans like consensus - it's one of the things that has made is a successful species. As the mainstream media deteriorates, the web makes every opinion available, and the White House seems like just another (not very convincing) media outlet, people end up "clinging" to what they believe and trusting the people they know.
Turns out, most of them know they don't want socialized medicine.
That's a very perceptive comment. The establishment used to have the playing field all to themselves when there was only the mainstream media, but now that they are confronted with an internet that allows the truth to escape their filters, they have reacted by flooding the internet with disinfo. The ruling class can't weed out all the truth on the internet, so they grow a forest of propaganda around it and hope that the shade cast makes the truth difficult to locate.
There is still far more truth to be found in new media than in old, but money still makes the rules, and every strategy that Bernays came up with to control the masses through information management can be modified to work on the Web just as well as it worked in print and on television and radio.
The frustrating thing is that I don't know if there is "more truth to be found in new media than in old". It seems to me that there is just as much semi-truth on the web, and the danger is that it gets repeated millions of times very quickly, without any kind of filter at all.
I still imagine a time when "reporters" looked at a story, researched claims made by both sides of any discussion, and presented a "factual" summary. Maybe that never existed, but it certainly seems to be gone today - in all forms of media.
It may be that, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, the world is not made better when millions of people can scream their opinion, with no way to sort to wheat from the chaff. I wonder the same thing about all the people holding cell phones to their heads as they drive and walk. Is the world made better by the billions of words that are being chattered endlessly back and forth? Might we all be better off if we took some time to think?
Old Media ios the lazy man's way. Turn on the TV and let some else tell what is the truth or not. No counter point, no thinking, no reason. As far as the internet goes, even here on HP I have seen the slant come for whatever What's her name is pushing at the time.
Sorry you folks are not much better than the MSM
The first step in making a difference is knowing what your believe in.
The second step is being willing to fight for what you believe in.
It's more these two factors than old media and new media.
We Democrats can do it. KEEP HOPE ALIVE.
My hope went away with the Public Option.
I appreciate your sounding the alarm, however the fat lady has not yet sung. You clearly recognize the power of the headline to confuse and push buttons so that your story gets noticed. This is all the right wing is doing. If we are given the clear light of day in which to act, we shall overcome. If we are not, they will see that we won't go away either and they will have to deal with punishing defeat after punishing defeat at the polls. Anger rouses, but unless they are counting on the crazies, it doesn't last. There are more of us than there are of them.
Since in many ways they seem to be counting on the crazies to do their dirty work, we need to focus on that tactic. Call the lies lies. Call out the liars. It got Franken elected. Never give up. Someday they will see the need to work with us.
Joe said, "There are more of us than there are of them"
That depends. There are more Democrats that Republicans. But there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals (40% conservative--21% liberal). What that says is either side has to compromise to get over 50%.
The problem with health care is not you aren't getting your message out. The problem is the message.
Liberal seem to assume everything they don't like is a lie. It isn't. The proposed healthcare plan as originally created was designed to eventually get to a single payer system. Most libs will say its to make the insurance companies compete. Now that is a lie.
The politicians who designed the reform say it won't ration medicine. President Obama went as far as to say "We don't want to kill your grandmother." But there is a lie in there. A single payer system always leads to rationing and it will kill a lot of grandmothers. It's not that the liberals want to do that, but it will be a result of the policies you advocate.
The left says that insuring everybody won't cause problems in the healthcare system. Again this is a lie. When people don't pay for something, they use it more or get more of it. We already don't have enough doctors, so how will we take care of the millions who will now be using the system much more frequently?
People in glass houses.....
I see that you like the status quo where most people are not or under insured where insurance giants take home millions while denying coverage to average citizens. You say in the new system coverage will be rationed, but it's rationed NOW.
The attention gets paid to those that makes the loudest noise which your side is surely doing. Yes, there may not be HCR this time because so many of you don't know when you are being abused.
Hate to cast the first stone at your glass house, buddy, but what you say is a lie. Don't believe me? Go to nations where there is government run cradle-to-grave free health care. You won't have to look hard -- it's every industrialized nation except the USA. The people in those countries use less of their nationalized health care system because it always encourages good health rather than pushing pills and surgeries on people after they get sick.
Health care in these countries is not rationed. You need it, you get it, and you don't even have to be a citizen of that nation to get it. A single-payer system is ideal. It works. The proof is across the ocean, and north of our border.
Oh, and most people in the USA are liberals. Maybe most VOTERS are conservative, but when only 60 percent vote in even a presidential election year, that speaks volumes of how much our political system needs health care.
I'm sorry. I think this author is wrong. A majority of Americans spoke out loud and clear this past election. We know what we want. Our politicians can ignore us all they want, at their peril. We will have the final say, at the ballot box. Eventually, they will learn the errors of their ways, but it will too late for them. Just because most of the media chooses to ignore us, it doesn't mean we're not here, ready to act. The solution is not to turn away from the Democrats, because we're the party that truly cares about our fellow man. The solution is to get BETTER Democrats to lead us. Too many of our current ones suck. Unlike Republicans, we don't band together to protect and defend one of our own who falls from grace. We call a dud a dud.
LCF, I think you have it wrong. you said unlike Republicans we don't band together to protect and defend one of our own who falls from grace. Have you ever heard of "Move on.org?"
One of the things I've noticed over the years is that power corrupts. When Republicans are in office for a while a lot of them get corrupted. But the Democrats seem to bring in people who are already corrupted (look at all the tax cheats Obama brought into or tried to bring into his cabinet). Look at the problems Chanlie Rangel is having, Chris Dodd, etc. If you want to read about it try Michelle Malkin's new book Culture of Corruption.
Michelle Malkin? Now there's someone with credibility (sarcasm meter in danger zone).
What's next on your reading list? Ann Coulter?
So, if this crew does not get it done for you, then who you going to vote for? The say at the ballot box has been said again and again but sooner or later, people realize there is not an infinite number of canidates.
The Dems have spend a more time out of the oval office than in it since I was born. More Dems need to look at this and recongize that Hope and Change only go so far in a world run by money, carots, and sticks.
Not saying it is right or fair, two fleeting ideals as well...............................................................................
I disagree - the Internet has indeed proved itself as "an establishment-slayer" in the healthcare debate. You are simply forgetting who the establishment currently is.
There is no mystery as to what/who is fueling the opposition for Health Reform. The same large lobbying groups who have dominated the government's involvement in health issues are still doing their thing. The media is doing its very precise and insidious role in influencing public opinion to insure that meaningful health reform doesn't rock the boat for those making the large profits. Large profits that fund most, if not all, of the elected officials in DC.
Its not a REP vs DEM thing. It's an elite DC/super-wealthy vs the common citizen thing. Nothing has changed with Obama despite his campaign rhetoric of the end to lobbyists controlling public policy. As soon as he was sworn in, he was taken into a back room and told what he would do. When the dust all settles on this dog and pony show, there will be little meaningful reform in health care. There will still be millions with none, and exhorbitant fees for those who do. The scripted finger-pointing will continue among the politicians as they gather together to once again feast on the bones of the gullible and naive people who go to the polls every election to vote for a person they think will represent their concerns. Just as others in the past, Obama has turned out to be just another predictable disappointment for the masses and another slave to the elite.
I too am worried about the Democrats in 2010, and after. We just aren't as mean as the Republicans. Where were we when Bush lied us into war? We didn't have a draft, so we grumbled, but we didn't have mass protests in the streets. There should have been millions of people in the street when we found out that there were no WMD. Remember when Bush had that jokey little movie at the Press dinner where he couldn't find the WMD while he looked under his desk, etc.? There should have been OUTRAGE in every paper in this country. And the kids dying in the showers in Iraq? Every Democratic Senator and Congressman should have been giving speeches every day about companies making profit off the death of our soldiers!
The GOP can't be that much more media savy than we are. We simply have to learn to scream as loud as they do. Don't knock it, it's working!
I read comments by Libs saying their problem is that they aren't as "mean" or cutthroat as Republicans, and I have to wonder, "What planet are they on?"
The left in America is nasty and brutal. You speak about how you failed to be outraged about Bush and the war. But you were outraged! Look at the "Bush lied," nonsense. Look at the truthers. Look at the names the left called Bush. Look at the lefties who called General Petraus, General Betrayus.
You say you have to learn to scream as loud as the GOP. This healthcare thing is not the GOP, but senior citizens who are screaming so loud. They know despite Obama and his administration's comments to the contrary, that this healthcare plan puts them in the crosshairs of denied healthcare.
Um... the woman who accused Specter of contributing to the downfall of America is in her 30s. Most of the people bringing guns to the town hall meetings aren't even close to retirement age. Unions are passionately in support of health care reform that far outstrips whatever compromise plan the Democratic leadership is floating this week, and you know who has a lot of sway in unions? Retired members.
Conservative politicians (or liberal-in-name-only) can use fear of crossing their constituents as an excuse to derail anything that might be seen as progressive. Politicians who have that letter "(D)" after their names rarely care if they tick off the people who voted for them because, hey, what other choice do we have? Voting for a third party candidate? Might as well not even show up to the voting booth.
The liberal base could stand to put the fear of God (or, at least, the Flying Spaghetti Monster) into their representatives. That's the only way we'll get them to do what needs to be done, short of sending people (like, say, Russ Feingold) who actually have courage to go with their proclaimed convictions.
People died because Bush lied (and, again, because not enough people stood up to him). Don't ever forget it.
Lunch break is over, pal. Get back to your desk at Eli Lily Co. (or is it Pfizer?).
Why worry about 2010 if we can't get passed, or the Dems will not pass legislations that is needed? That is the problem with uis Dems we worry what happens next election, so we get nothing done.
I am sick of voting for a party that accomplishes nothing. If they don't get it done get rid of the bums
I agree with you, we definitely need to do a better job getting our message out. (And, the other thing we need to do is stop pretending that bipartisanship is possible with the current Republicans- we've got a majority in both houses and it's time to use it!)
I also just wanted to mention that there were mass protests leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They simply weren't well covered by the media. But, they were there.
San Francisco (scroll to the end of the page): http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/03/23/will-we-ever-get-market-street-right/
New York: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0215-12.htm
Los Angeles (scroll to the bottom): http://www.democrats.com/node/18513
It's easiest to find pics from the big cities, but these protests were happening around the US.
Debate changing sound bite idea: PATIENTS BILL OF RIGHTS.
Of course this has probably been proposed, but what better way to cut some of the arguments at the knees is to create a Patients Bill of Rights to add to the bill.
Would it be mostly cosmetic? Of course! Most of the arguments have no merit, but to have one would change the debate and cut the arguments off at their knees.
Just look at this potential headline for a soundbite: "Obama Unveils Patients' Bill of Rights". What could be more American than a Bill of Rights?
You're already handed a Patients' Bill of Rights when you go to a hospital. It's total BS, but whatever.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
