If anyone ever doubted that advertising works, the latest example of its persuasive power, documented in The New York Times Thursday, should prompt them to reconsider. A piece by Abby Goodnough strongly suggests that money spent by opponents of the health reform law has helped color public opinion in negative shades.
Goodnough reported that the success of opponents in framing the law negatively “may stem in large part from more than $200 million in advertising spending by an array of conservative groups” that include the US Chamber of Commerce; Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS; the American Action Network, founded by Fred V. Malek, a prominent Republican fund raiser; and the 60 Plus Association, which bills itself as a conservative alternative to the AARP. Goodnough totaled the amount these groups have spent—$235 million—and compared that sum to spending by the president, his Department of Health and Human Services, and a handful of less well-heeled contributors. The result? Opponents outspent supporters—who spent only $69 million—by more than three to one.
Whether it was lack of money or for other reasons, the administration didn’t promote the law, and the lack of public enthusiasm for it was evident among the men and women on the street in Pennsylvania who Goodnough interviewed
Those were similar to the conclusions Campaign Desk reached in a post on Wednesday, in which we argued that president Obama and his allies have so far failed to explain to ordinary people the heart of the reform law, the individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance. Gary Schiff, a retired teacher and businessman, said it best in Goodnough’s story: “All you hear about it now is the Republicans saying what’s wrong with it: that it’s socialism, that it’s going to bankrupt the country. I’ll give them credit; they’re great at framing the debate.”
In my own CJR Town Hall conversations, held in several states in recent months, I found people frustrated, angry, and sometimes unsure and uninformed about the law. Goodnough did also. Richard Tems, a businessman and member of the Bucks County Republican Committee, told the Times about his hip replacement surgery, about which he was very satisfied indeed. He offered what the Times called “grim predictions about what might transpire under the law.” Good medical experiences like his would disappear under the Affordable Care Act, he said. “If you look at any nationalized health program, whether it’s Canada’s or England’s, they ration everything.” That would be news to people in Canada and England, but it continues to be the mythology in America about foreign systems.
Goodnough interviewed a cardiologist (cardiologists are among the highest paid medical specialists) who didn’t like the “accountable care organizations”—groups of doctors and hospitals working together, which the law encourages in order to coordinate care, improve quality, and perhaps reduce costs. This physician said these groups would strip doctors of their autonomy and “patients will lose their advocates”—a debatable proposition. Another man Goodnough spoke to said the law would put taxpayers in a position of footing the bill for overly generous insurance plans people could not afford on their own. “It creates a sense of entitlement and expectation.,” he said. “You want to be on birth control? Buy your own damn birth control. You want to get eye surgery? Pay for it yourself.”
Goodnough found the old arguments used for decades against health reform are alive and well in Doylestown, PA, many of them nourished anew by a big, big-money ad campaign. Has the Affordable Care Act made any progress in changing the public perception of American health care? If it hasn’t, whose fault is that? Or does an ad campaign of this size trump every effort? These are some of the questions the Times’s story raised.
Goodnough's piece was good, and the Times and other media have run a spate of good stories over the past week on how the Affordable Care Act benefits ordinary Americans and what they would lose if the law is thrown out. But why on earth did the media wait so long to run stories like this? If they'd been running regular explainer pieces like this over the past two years, perhaps public opinion toward the law would be more favorable and Justices Kennedy and Roberts would think long and hard about overturning it. I suspect it's the media's typical reactive mode of reporting ("we cover what the president and his opponents say") plus their paralyzing fear of being accused of "liberal bias."
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 22 Jun 2012 at 12:40 PM
The latest installment of the "People are too stupid to know what's good for them" liberal schtick.
Nothing drives liberals crazy faster than a populace that won't accept leftist Gubmint boondoggles.
Don't these ignorant slobs know that pots of free Gubmint milk and honey lie at the end of the leftist rainbow? WHY aren't they lining up to suck at the Gubmint teat?
Obviously these stupid rubes are succumbing to Wall Street's subliminal lies!
Nothing a little Gubmint reeducation can't take care of, right Trudy?
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 22 Jun 2012 at 09:36 PM
And your point is..... what?
Advertising shouldn't be allowed because it brings people to an opinion that the author doesn't like?
Maybe it is this - here is proof that advertising works - use it for your business.
If all that people heard was the pro-ACA advertising funded by the drug companies and mega-hospital corporations, then the law would be better regarded?
Stripped to it's essence, you are saying that when people are presented with an opinion, then they may adopt it. Perhaps that is because it is revealing a concealed truth, like the fact that you really may lose your ability to keep your doctor. Or that the bill will not (as Obama promised) save money. Or perhaps it is because the other side is distorting things as well. Your article doesn't get to this level
#3 Posted by Phil Shaffer, CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 05:33 AM
A teacher would be fired if her lectures were as unpredictable as the events the news media must investigate. But no one in the news media is interested in communicating like a teacher because reporters are too busy to write the second draft of history.
#4 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 05:00 PM