Monthly Archives: January 2011

Strong Support for Healthcare Reform

My headline is not one you’re likely to see in mainstream media headlines.  Not because it’s false; actually, it’s true. But the mainstream media wants a couple of things:

  1. Continued access to Republican sources; ergo,
  2. MSM will continue to report GOP talking points, even when they know they are not true.

A recent poll by The Washington Post and its reporting makes the case. Here’s the headline: More Americans oppose health-care law, but few want a total repeal.

More than what, you ask?  More than ever? More than the last poll? More than support it?

Actually, the simple answer is the third option. Simple, but incorrect, as interpreted by most people. And no where in the article does it explain what the headline means.

Republicans are forever saying that “the American people don’t support this healthcare bill,” or words to that effect.  They then say that’s why they want to repeal it.

As The Post reports, few really want repeal, but you will forever see the GOP make that false claim, false but duly noted by the press.

But to the question of support for the healthcare bill, The Post’s Jon Cohen buries the lede in the penultimate paragraph.

Another factor in the debate is that a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far.

So if you add the number together from The Post’s poll, 45% support the bill, and about 13% of those who opposed it wish it went further, meaning 58%, a sizable majority (a landslide in electoral politics), either like the current healthcare overhaul or wish it would go further, and in all likelihood that means arguably not in the direction the GOP would take it.

Yesterday’s poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press confirms this interpretation.

The public continues to be divided over what it wants to see done with the health care law – 37% favor its repeal, while nearly as many (35%) want the law expanded, and 20% would leave it as it is.

Which again gives us 55% of Americans wanting the law as is or expanded.

Complicating my view are the results from two other polls this week.  A CNN poll doesn’t ask the question about whether opposition is because the law doesn’t go far enough, and its topline support/oppose is the same as the other polls, a slight plurality opposed.  But when forced to choose to either keep it all or repeal it all, 50% say repeal it all with 42% say keep it all.  One would think that if a majority liked the law or wanted it to go further, the “don’t repeal” group would be closer to 55%, not 42%.

But I think another question, asked in this week’s  CBS/New York Times poll, puts the entire debate into perspective. When asked if any of the provisions that have already taken effect (keep children on policy until age 26 or that children can not be rejected for insurance if they have a preexisting condition), apply to the respondent, we learn only 13% have benefited from the law yet. Once people start seeing the benefits to themselves, support could grow.

Another key issue is this from the CNN/NY Times poll:

Those who support repeal were asked whether they would continue to do so if it meant that insurance companies were no longer required to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions; 52% said they would, but 35% said in that case, the law should not be repealed.

Someone (the Press? the Dems? Both?) have not done a good job of explaining the bill.

A critical question is this” Should it be the media’s responsibility to explain the bill. That depends on what one think the media’s role should be. If it is to simply report what is happening or whether it is to find the truth. I believe it is the latter and cite the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, an organization to which, admittedly, not all journalists belong.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

…Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. [emphasis added]

Yet, throughout this debate one issue that confounds people in my business (communications consulting). Again, from the CBS?NY Times poll:

And finally, there may be some lingering confusion about the provisions of the bill. 56% of Americans say the bill’s impact on themselves and their families has not been explained well to them.

Given what’s at stake, which is not only the relentless false impressions of the bill duly stenographed by the media, maybe the best option is an advertising campaign. What would it cost to widely distribute this 30-sec. ad in an attempt to bypass the media:

The new federal health law means:

  1. Insurance companies can’t drop coverage when you get sick, and they can’t cap your coverage.
  2. They cannot deny you or your children coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
  3. You won’t lose your insurance when you change jobs.
  4. Reduced costs for drugs for seniors.
  5. Tax credits for small businesses offering health insurance
  6. A reduced federal deficit.

The new federal health law—do you want all these provisions repealed?

On TV, these bullet points should be on the screen as the narrator reads them to ensure that people who can’t hear the ad but see the TV can read them.

Will this ad overcome the misleading information disseminated by the MSM and the false information by Fox News and conservative talk radio. I’m not sure, but clearly proponents of healthcare reform are losing the messaging war.  This can’t hurt.

Note: An edited version of this post appears on News Commonsense, my media blog.

Journalism, 30 Years Later

Tim McGuire, who teaches journalism ethics and on the business of journalism at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, recently asked some journalists about today’s business, compared to 30 years ago. Some excerpts:

One big change, for sure, is that no newspaper editor could say as you did to me in the mid 1990’s, “The truth is, it’s not really news until we (the big, major newspaper) print it.” That, of course, was before the blogosphere.

…As a whole, newspapering is still about finding stuff out and telling everybody else, and doing it ethically and in ways that are engaging and meaningful. …Newspapering is, and let’s hope will always be, about bringing the truth to light.

–Pam Fine, University of Kansas journalism professor

 

We have a far shorter time period to deliberate. Quite frankly, we sometimes are rendered moot by twitter and blogs that move at hyperspeed written by reporters that might or might not be accurate.

–Arnie Robbins, St. Louis Post Dispatch editor

 

I look at the sizes of the staffs at the papers where I worked and in some newsrooms, maybe the majority, you can hear the echoes of what used to be coming from the empty desks where journalists used to sit. And you simply cannot do more with less, and the push to do so only diminishes the quality of what gets done

–Gregory Favre, Distinguished Fellow of the Poynter Institute

 

Increasingly, reporters rely too much on digital communication instead of one-on-one interviews and in the process miss the opportunities for follow-up or the emotional response that can be drawn from personal contact. Sources, especially the powerful ones who are advised by public relations consultants, have figured this out, along with the fact that shrinking staffs have left some reporters time-constrained. That’s allowed those sources more opportunities to try to shape the message. I’ve even spoken with some folks who have said their newspapers publish their press releases verbatim with no calls, no checking for accuracy.

The push to be first online  hasn’t been totally a good thing; too many errors have been made and some of today’s journalists just shrug and say that’s part of today’s deal, unconcerned, apparently that the false facts, once reported, may live on forever in the Internet world.  There has been a definite erosion in standards; accuracy, while still important, has given ground to immediacy. Journalists can tweet falsehoods and other will pick up the information, spreading it far and wide.

In 1982, the separation between advertisers and editorial was more defined, almost absolute. Now that invisible wall is gone and while editors are still the guardians of standards, the protectors of the public’s right to know, they also are now marketers and collaborators with the advertising and circulation departments.

–Rick Rodriguez, faculty of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

 

News organizations continue to perform the same fundamental functions — gathering, shaping and sharing news — but in increasingly and radically different ways. –—Len Downie, former editor, The Washington Post

[All emphases added]

“Alternative Vision of Governing”

I’ve posted on Blue Virginia about the Democrats inability to articulate a vision.  Thanks to Lowell for the opportunity.

Apropos of that post, this is from today’s email from Howard Dean.

I want to hear from you. What do our shared values mean to you? What should be our priorities for the coming year? How will we work together to move America forward in 2011?

Our movement is best when it’s a conversation. You just heard from me and I want to hear from you.

Please take a moment to a let us know your thoughts at DemocracyforAmerica.com or join me live at Daily Kos tonight at 9pm eastern for a live chat. I’ll answer questions and discuss with you what you care about most and your ideas on how to move forward on our shared values.

Why Insurance Companies Oppose Reform Repeal

But investors say they’re increasingly optimistic on health insurers’ future for two crucial reasons: regulations released this year have been relatively industry-friendly, increasing stability, and the health reform’s new business opportunities are beginning to look more tangible.

…Over the past year, there has also been a noticeable shift in rhetoric, as insurers that had previously warred with the administration signaled a willingness to play nice in 2011.

Wellpoint spent much of last year sparring with the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over a double-digit rate hike and policy recissions, at one point writing a letter to President Barack Obama accusing the president of spreading “false information.”

Speaking on Monday, CEO Angela Braly framed health reform as a collaborative project with the Obama administration.

“We’re working collaboratively with the administration and intend to continue to do so,” she said. “We have brought to them input both from our voice and our consumer advisory group, and they give us a lot of feedback.

Maybe it would be a good thing if the law were repealed.

Post Goes Hollywood

The Washington Post, having laid off over the past couple of  years scores of seasoned reporters who covered the important issues of the day, is beefing up its Style and Arts sections.  Oh boy!

UPDATE:

Journalism used to focus on what citizens needed to know, whether they liked it or not. Now it focuses on what the audience wants, explaining the spike in celebrity and entertainment news.

Lost Investments

My question for conservatives is this: Do you want the government deeply involved in the economy and picking winners and losers, or do you want to create a lot of jobs—paying $300 a month?

That is a question that arises out of this story of Evergreen Solar and its industry. The company took $43 million from the taxpayers of Massachusetts to develop a new solar technology. It created jobs in the Bay State, virtually all of which, three years later, are moving to China.

But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.

,,,Although solar energy still accounts for only a tiny fraction of American power production, declining prices and concerns about global warming give solar power a prominent place in United States plans for a clean energy future — even if critics say the federal government is still not doing enough to foster its adoption.

Beyond the issues of trade and jobs, solar power experts see broader implications. They say that after many years of relying on unstable governments in the Middle East for oil, the United States now looks likely to rely on China to tap energy from the sun.

Evergreen, in announcing its move to China, was unusually candid about its motives. Michael El-Hillow, the chief executive, said in a statement that his company had decided to close the Massachusetts factory in response to plunging prices for solar panels. World prices have fallen as much as two-thirds in the last three years — including a drop of 10 percent during last year’s fourth quarter alone.

Chinese manufacturers, Mr. El-Hillow said in the statement, have been able to push prices down sharply because they receive considerable help from the Chinese government and state-owned banks, and because manufacturing costs are generally lower in China.

“While the United States and other Western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint,” he said.

Apparently Massachusetts didn’t strike much of a bargain when negotiating the investment. The jobs were good but temporary. I suspect Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, as probably did his predecessors Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, is giving away the farm in his attempt to lure businesses to the Commonwealth.

To American business the bottom line is the bottom line. We expect individual citizens to have a responsibility to this country and to make sacrifices but allow businesses to operate under a different set of rules: get as much as you can as fast as you can. Individual profit over national prosperity.

To be fair, however, when solar power becomes cheaper that fossil fuels, Americans will install it. The Wal-Mart generation seems to evaluate products based on price alone. And there’s not much we can do to stop it. Americans are not going to “buy American” if that means spending more, Nor can middle class Americans afford that patriotic luxury. So if Evergreen Solar stayed in Massachusetts and continued to grow jobs at $5,400 a month, it’s not likely solar power would become a viable business for the company when the Chinese can make it as well and much cheaper.

No amount of giveaways to businesses will reverse this economic axiom: cheaper sells better.

So it’s foolish for governments to invest in businesses in the vague, and as we saw with Evergreen, ephemeral attempt to create manufacturing jobs unless Americans are willing to work for $300 a month.

Better that governments invest in the businesses that can’t easily exported: the knowledge businesses. Education is the one investment that government, which is to say all of us collectively, should make to create jobs here. We need to develop the intellectual capital that can be exported to help other countries who may likely be more efficient, which is to say cheaper, than we can here.

Otherwise, more states and the federal government will be like Massachusetts, once the bloom is off the rose, hat in hand asking for its money back.

Michael McCarthy, a spokesman for Evergreen, said the company had already met 80 percent of the grant’s job creation target by employing up to 800 factory workers since 2008 and should owe little money to the state. Evergreen also retains about 100 research and administrative jobs in Massachusetts.

The company also received about $22 million in tax credits, and it will discuss those with Massachusetts, he said.

Good luck with that.

Is Congress Unicameral?

In this otherwise informative article of the challenges facing states that must reimburse the federal government for money they borrowed to pay unemployment benefits, writers Michael Cooper and Mary Williams Walsh reveal a stunning ignorance of what happened last election. To wit,

But the economy did not turn around in time and the new Congress, dominated by Republicans determined to shrink the size of government….

…Many advocates believe that the new Republican majority in Congress….

Someone needs to inform them that Republicans dominate the House of Representatives only. Congress has another house that once in awhile has something to say about legislation.

Maybe the reporters were giving us a de facto description. Democrats may be OK with the suggestion, somewhat justified, that even if they have a majority in the Senate they act like a minority, because if things don’t get better by next year, voters may blame the “Republican Congress.”

Getting an Interviewee to Admit Hypocrisy

Robert Siegel of NPR’s All Things Considered is one of the better interviewers on radio or television. While normally I would object to his allowing the interviewee to make unsubstantiated statements such as former Cong. John Shadegg of Arizona who states that the last Congress was arrogant by passing legislation that “a majority of Americans opposed,” it is beautiful the way Siegel sticks to the point and gets Shadegg to admit that he has said “over the top” things that aren’t helpful.

Listen