Everyone, it seems, is trying to take the pulse of the electorate—Americans who, as the saying goes, vote with their feet and may well decide the fate of this effort to change the American way of health care. The pollsters, the wordsmiths, the PR firms, and the stealth groups have been out in full force, trying to influence the hearts and minds of people turning out at town hall meetings. All this leaves reporters in a pickle, though: How do they know what people really think? So we at Campaign Desk decided to use that age-old reporting tool—the man-on-the-street interview—and set out to look at what men and women we met have to say about health reform. The series is archived here.
We have come to believe that the entire debate, its complexity and its nuances, has been taking place 30,000 feet above the heads of people in whose name the reform battle is being waged. Our interviews confirmed that observation. Of course, our results are not scientific, but we think they offer some pretty good clues to the way ordinary Americans are thinking. Too many people we met are not engaged, have heard lots of wrong information, and have no idea what reform means to them.
Columbia, Missouri, a typical college town, is almost smack in the middle of America. What better way of listening to ordinary people, we thought, than to talk to shopkeepers on Main Street; students around the Missouri campus, who will soon have to buy their own insurance; and patients at a community clinic, who have a big dog in this fight. Columbia has a reputation for being a blue oasis in the middle of a very red state, yet we found people skeptical of the president’s ability to produce health reform and unaware of what reform would mean for them. Some people I met had tried to follow the debate, but recently lost interest and just tuned out; they were people who once supported reform.
I began my interviews at the Family Health Center, which offers primary care, dental, and mental health services to patients with low incomes. That afternoon, a steady stream of patients and caregivers came in and out of the large, well-kept waiting room with furnishings provided by the local Rotary Club.
Kathy, who wouldn’t give her last name, was waiting for a hearing-impaired patient who would need Kathy’s translation skills during the medical exam. The patient didn’t show up, and Kathy had time to chat. She indicated she had some notion of what the debate is about but confessed, “I don’t understand what plans are on the table. I don’t think it’s worth the emotional and mental energy on something that’s not on the table. I’d like to know what’s going on, but I am not going to base my opinion on unsubstantiated sound bites from the media.” She had heard of a public plan and offered this assessment: “We need to be careful in crafting another government-run system.”
Kathy, forty-one, owns a small business—the kind that struggles to pay for health coverage for its workers. The sixteen people she employs to provide interpretation services work part time. Some are uninsured, and others have coverage through a spouse. “I have no idea how it (reform) would affect me as a business owner,” she said. “I hope it would provide a resource. I really don’t have much of a buffer between the price of our services and my payroll. I don’t know if it will be an opportunity for my employees to have insurance.”
Rose Shepherd, seventy-three, was waiting for her disabled adult daughter, who is a clinic patient. She didn’t know much about reform, either. What did she want to know? “I kind of want to know what the end result is,” she told me. “I’m afraid that people who have more are so afraid that those who have less will get some of their more.”
- 1
- 2
Fascinating stuff. Your series here is truly a public service, Trudy, and should be required reading not only by the pols who are drafting or obstructing the legislation, but by your worthless, overpaid colleagues who, it is very evident in this piece, are doing far more harm than good in covering this issue. I am profoundly heartened by the likes of Rose Shepherd who has your talentless mediocre colleagues' number:
~~
“Who could I really trust to tell me?” she asked. Should the media tell you more, I probed. “God no,” she replied. “It’s all sensationalism. You can’t believe what you hear.”
~~
Classic.
Again, Trudy, congratulations on this very important series. I mean it.
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 01:57 PM
It occurred to me, as I was reading the astonishing coverage of the health care 'debate,' which term can hardly qualify as the actual merits of alternative systems are being ignored in favor of Death Panels and Mandatory Circumcision, that journalists are being bamboozled again, as they were in the climate change coverage, by reporting 'both sides' rather than relying on facts.
Am I missing something? Wouldn't it make sense to report, Participants opposed to health care system reform repeated the assertion, already discounted many times, that the reform will include Death Panels, etc.
#2 Posted by Christine Heinrichs, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 02:09 PM
I, too, am very impressed with the quality of Trudy's attempts to shine a little light on an otherwise generally murky and very frustrating topic that is the so-called “debate” on health care. And one is tempted to conclude that indeed, our legislators can seem to do no more than fiddle while Rome burns.
And I do not want to defend poor journalism, there certainly is enough of it out there, but it seems to me that a couple of the readers here are themselves guilty—in some measure—of simplistic, bumper sticker labeling in describing journalists in general as “worthless, overpaid, … doing more harm than good” and that they are being fecklessly “bamboozled” by those that would manipulate public perceptions and opinions.
As with so many of the issues of our day, the reality is not quite so simple, much as we might wish for it to be. The owners and publishers of our news media, and particularly that of print, are up against some formidable challenges and it appears that the competitive answers of many of them are to go the way of News Corp. or television news in general; they are, after all, seeking our attention and nothing gets our attention like sensationalism, drama, he-said, she said (provided that it can be made inflammatory enough), … . The list of devices goes on.
And it may be easy to forget that professional journalists are hardly at liberty in such an environment to pursue the quaint standards of journalistic integrity that most of them learned, somewhere in their very distant, murky pasts. When a publisher and the editors make it clear that your story has to have “punch,” that it has to be something that people want to read, that means something altogether different than it meant 20 years ago. One's financial condition is very much a part of the vivid calculus. There are plenty of takers out there for tenuous jobs and one can understand, perhaps even forgive, that journalistic principles may, and often do, suffer.
Consider the layoffs at Gannett in recent months, or the sobering effect of James Murdoch's stern injunction (with News Corp.'s cross hairs set on the BBC) at a MacTaggart lecture in London, where he delivered “a 39-minute plea for comprehensive deregulation, warning of the dangers of state interference in the ‘natural diversity’ of the media industry.”¹ The London Times was a respected, venerable news institution which now resembles its sister publication, the tabloid Sun, more than its former incarnation, and it wasn't journalists that made it that way.
Footnote:
Freedland, Jonathan, “Don't let Murdoch smash this jewel. The BBC must act to save itself”; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/01/bbc-james-murdoch-new-media
#3 Posted by Joel Stookey, CJR on Sun 6 Sep 2009 at 05:50 AM
I'm not unsympathetic to the situation you describe, Joel, with honest, hardworking journalists looking on with dismay at the implosion of the newpaper industry, many of their friends and colleagues laid off or leaving the profession. And I am aware of the pressure brought to bear on the hardworking journalist by publishers and editors who want more entertainment and less policy wonkery. That's the current state of the profession.
But I am not sympathetic to the abandonment of those "quaint standards of journalistic integrity that most of them learned, somewhere in their very distant, murky pasts."
On the national journalism scene, political journalists earn salaries in the six figures. Washington Post political journos come in at around $125,000 per year; Politico pays their own Drudge-mongers closer to $150,000 and up (way up is what I hear). Television journalists make three times that and up. They are paid well for the mediocre swill they serve up.
I call it the corruption of the overpaid mediocrity. It's what keeps the beltway going; mediocre writers getting paid a lot of money to write what the powerful want them to write. Their loyalty, these TV and national beltway journalists, lies not with their audience but with their sources, as Tim Russert revealed, and the people about whom they are reporting, as Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder revealed. It's one big insider club, at the expense of the news consumer and the audience. And it is destructive.
At the national level, then, you have a "Gang of 500" hucksters, entertainers and court jesters of the powerful and the politically connected, who refer to themselves as "journalists." There are exceptions, of course. But I would not weep, and the country would be better off, I assert, if at least 450 of that "gang" were populating the unemployment lines instead of degrading our public discourse. Yes, I really mean that.
That is why Ms. Garber finds so many confused and uninformed, but interested, potential news consumers on health care reform in her excellent series. I plead guilty to the charge of simplistic, bumper-sticker labeling, but I think I have made the case behind it here. Where am I wrong?
#4 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sun 6 Sep 2009 at 01:28 PM
Tom:
I may have put it poorly but my issue isn't that you're wrong in any respect. I suspect that we're in essential agreement, but rather I didn't want to see all of journalism tarred with the same brush. And we can understand why journalistic integrity can yield to a paycheck, even if we cannot—may not—forgive the sacrifice.
“At the national level, then, you have a ‘Gang of 500’ hucksters,
… . I would not weep, and the country would be better off, I as-
sert, if at least 450 of that ‘gang’ were populating the unemploy-
ment lines instead of degrading our public discourse. Yes, I real-
ly mean that.”
Amen. And let's push upstream with that idea and get a little closer to the source of this miserable state. Rose Shepherd's “You can't believe what you hear” is a telling statement: I expect that television is her principal source of “news,” as it seems to be for most Americans, and to use CNN as an example, who among us can forget their grotesque “Capital Gang” or national policy czar and diviner of public morality, Lou Dobbs? News or meaningful information!? Hardly. Entertainment? Of a grim sort, I suppose.
Television has calcuatedly formed a pantheon of gods with their news “personalities” because those are the people that most Americans apparently want to “hear.” That was made clear some years ago when CNN's Larry King held a two-hour—two hour!—interview with the news “superstar” and “icon,” Barbara Walters. The substance of that travesty is best left to the ether, except to note that it undoubtedly established a world record for the utterance of the personal pronoun “I”. But that kind of thing is, in the main, what Americans want as news.
Traveling upstream leads to a simplistic formulation:
journalism → editors/publishers → the news consumer
It is the last in that progression, the news consumer, that is ultimately responsible for the condition that we deplore. To borrow from the inimitable Walt Kelly and his Pogo comic strip, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
#5 Posted by Joel Stookey, CJR on Sun 6 Sep 2009 at 09:19 PM
Joel,
You make some excellent and thought-provoking points. I don't mean to paint all journos with the broad brush of my contempt -- I have the deepest respect, even passion, for good journalism, and I don't think that good journalism gets the credit and recognition it deserves. I see excellent journalism still practiced by regional reporters -- the quality is uneven, of course, but the tradition is there. And I think that good journalism is found in the wire services, especially Reuters and AFP, and, except for placing Ron Fournier in charge of political reporting, even with the Associated Press. We see bad reporters, for sure, but the genre itself is not corrupt. Non-profit journalism here at CJR, at PBS, and elsewhere is superb.
So we are agreed on the corruption of big money journalism. I found your diagram interesting and clarifying. I would amend it as such:
journalism editors/publishers → the news consumer
Television. Yes, it is true that the majority of people get their "news" from television. But let's not be too passive here; as horrifying as your Larry King story is (I'm grateful to have missed that) I don't think Larry King holds himself out to be a journalist. He is an entertainer. Now if John King and David Gregory and Ed Henry and Chip Reid and Chuck Todd would admit they are entertainers -- clowns, really, court jesters -- I submit they wouldn't be doing nearly as much damage to the public discourse. Let's call the cable networks and most of network news what it is: infotainment, and let's stop pretending (or, letting them pretend) they are doing journalism. Simplistic, yes, but clarifying, yes? That way, the consumer would be clear about what they were consuming.
You know, Joel, I am not nearly as cynical about what Americans "want" as news. Almost all journos make the same kind of assertion as yours. I contend that this is the swill Americans are served, and are conditioned to accept. It's true they want more entertainment and not so much news. News is hard, entertainment is easy. But that doesn't mean they would rather have entertainment than news. They want both. I contend that WHEN they want news, they expect it to be true facts and accurate, honest representations when a thing is held out to be news. In other words, they want entertainment and infotainment, and a little bit of news. So they turn to the fluff pieces and the celebrity gossip, and then they catch some news. And they believe that news to be journalism, but in most cases it is not journalism, it is hucksterism.
It is hucksterism when so-called journalists pretend that violent town hall meetings are what is important about health care reform. The explosive town hall meetings are infotainment, not journalism. And it's these rodeo clowns in the beltway that are peddling this swill as journalism, when in truth the thing is for their own entertainment and that of their social class, who don't need health care reform. And they hawk this dishonest product for the people who have bought their loyalty. That is the corruption of the national media.
So I don't hold the American consumer responsible for this state of corruption as you do. They think they are still watching Walter Cronkite and what they are getting is much more dishonest than that.
#6 Posted by Tom, CJR on Mon 7 Sep 2009 at 01:22 AM
eh. My diagram didn't print.
journalism [doublehead arrow] editors/publishers [arrow] consumer
#7 Posted by Tom, CJR on Mon 7 Sep 2009 at 01:26 AM