Peter G. Peterson Goes to School: Organizations funded by Peter G. Peterson, a former Wall Street investment banker and long-time foe of Social Security, have had a powerful influence in shaping this year’s debate over Social Security. The media have liberally quoted representatives of these Peterson-funded groups. The website Remapping Debate took a deep look at one Peterson-funded activity—the creation of a questionable curriculum to educate high school teachers about the U.S. economic system. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation gave Columbia University’s Teachers College $2.4 million to design the curriculum which Remapping Debate reported contained “errors of commission and omission.” The piece offered a rare glimpse at the nexus between big money, ideological agendas, and the academic enterprise.
A Missing Health Policy Story: The usual eager beavers on the health policy beat missed a big one when they did not report on a major study from the RAND Corp. which showed that patients did indeed put off going to the doctor and getting needed care, including preventive services, when their insurance policy deductibles rose into the stratosphere. They skipped preventive care, even if their insurance covered it. The higher the deductible, the less patients spent on medical care, meaning they used fewer services. Making patients think twice before using medical services is a cost-control measure envisioned by health policy wonks and politicians. It’s a thread woven throughout the health reform law. The RAND study was well done and based on a very large sample, which makes it so credible. What’s remarkable is that too many journos writing on this subject months after the study went public have failed to examine what it said.
A Good Social Security Story—At Last: For most of the year, shallow reporting has characterized media coverage of Social Security. So when Emily Kaiser of Reuters penned a fine piece that moved beyond the one-sided framing that had become the norm, I was overjoyed. Kaiser dug into the Social Security archives to begin her story with a compelling lede about Robert Ball, a civil servant who devoted most of his career to making sure Americans had an income base when they got old, became disabled, or when a breadwinner died. She provided history and context for people to understand the attackers and defenders of the country’s most popular social program. Kaiser tackled the rhetoric of the debate and brought voices into her piece that had been missing up to that point.
An Interview with Don Barlett: Journalists have heroes, and Don Barlett of the famed Philadelphia Inquirer reporting duo Barlett and (Jim) Steele ranks right up there for me and other reporters. Barlett’s illuminating interview should be required reading for all reporters especially newbies. Barlett discussed their series “America: What Went Wrong,” and the lessons it gives for what has gone awry in America today, two decades after the series appeared. During the interview we talked a lot about the disconnect between the news media and their audiences. “Today’s journalists often forget the audience earlier generations wrote for—the average person,” Barlett told me. “Now they write for Wall Street or Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill or cable television talking heads.” Barlett noted that too often a reporter’s questions are framed in economic terms not in moral terms—is something right or wrong. Moral outrage in the newsroom is gone. “Journalists have literally lost their moral compass,” he said. Something to ponder as the new year begins.