Politics

The Frost Story

Bloggers portray a different “reality”

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

The fight over a bill calling for a $35 billion increase in funding for the SCHIP program, (passed by both houses of Congress and vetoed by the president last week), which helps states insure uninsured children in need, has been ugly, but over the past few days, it got a whole lot uglier.

The kickoff to the latest round of partisan bloodletting came after congressional Democrats trotted out twelve-year-old Graeme Frost—whose uninsured family made use of the program after he suffered brain injuries in a car crash—to give the response to the president’s weekly radio address on September 29. Right-wing bloggers went apoplectic over the nakedly political stunt, staking out the Frost’s home, e-mailing and calling the parents, dropping by the father’s place of business, and claiming that the Frosts aren’t poor enough to deserve the state’s help with health insurance.

Scenes like this have become familiar in the blogosphere over the last few years, with the truth often getting lost in the partisan barrage of charge and countercharge. Some of the charges that right-wing bloggers have leveled include that the Frost’s home was worth half a million dollars, that the family pays $20,000 a year, apiece, for two of their children to attend a private school, that the Frost’s neglected to get health insurance even though it’s cheap and easy to do, and that Mr. Frost, as the owner of a business, could insure his family though his business.

Now, there’s something to these charges, but as usual when it comes to blogospheric fury, the full truth doesn’t always match the charges. At issue here is a piece by blogger and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin, who almost always manages to get herself in the middle of fights like this, and a story that ran in The New York Times this morning. Looking at the two together is an excellent way to compare straight reporting with the ideological bent given every story by bloggers like Malkin. (For the record, I’m not saying the left doesn’t do this—it does, and it’s something CJR is going to be paying particular attention to during the upcoming election season.)

Malkin published her account of the Frost story in her syndicated column today, and in plugging the piece on her blog late last night, neglected to correct the mistakes that by then she knew she had made, thanks to the Times’s reporting. Malkin writes in her column that the Frost’s home is “now worth an estimated $300,000,” and while the father owns his own business, he “chose not to buy health insurance.”

The Times piece either contradicted many of the “facts” in Malkin’s story, or at the very least added relevant context that Malkin left out.

The house, far from being worth half a million, as some bloggers claimed, or even the $300K that Malkin claimed, is actually “now worth about $260,000, according to public records.” While Malkin says that Frost “chose not to buy health insurance,” the Times reports that “the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions.”

As for the charges by other bloggers that Frost could get insurance for his family though his business, the Times reports that the business was actually dissolved in 1999. So, that’s the dread MSM’s take. And while many conservative bloggers like Malkin have said that they’re satisfied that the Times’ story is “fair,” it seems that it isn’t fair enough to get them to admit that they’ve been wrong about some key parts of the Frost story.

But then again, blogging means never having to say you’re sorry.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

russ poter

Wed 10 Oct 2007 06:34 PM

IMHO: it is clear that the writer supports the S-CHIP increase of $35 billion.

Does the writer understand, how much of an increase that $35 billion is from the current $5 billion? In nominal terms? Percentage terms?

And the macro-economic effect? When is that going to be mentioned? At the bankruptcy hearing?

When?

padikiller

Wed 10 Oct 2007 07:25 PM

Paul McLeary Wrote

Now, there’s something to these charges, but as usual when it comes to blogospheric fury... ...blogging means never having to say you’re sorry

padikiller smells the sour grapes of a dying profession

The POINT is that the "professional journalists" weren't the ones who dug up the facts here... Michelle Malkin did it...

If by "staking out" a house you mean "driving by to look at it"... Then yep... She did it... Guilty as charged...

And not only that, but she actually had the nerver to (GASP!) email and call the primary sources of the story...

People who actually beat the streets and dig up those "fact-thingies"?...

Behold the Blogosphere!... The future of fact-checked reporting in Realityville... And the death of an apologist propaganda industry in McLearyland...

padikiller

Wed 10 Oct 2007 11:04 PM

Paul McLeary Wrote

(For the record, I’m not saying the left doesn’t do this—it does, and it’s something CJR is going to be paying particular attention to during the upcoming election season.)

padikiller isn't sleeping easy in McLearyland, desptie the promise of future journalistic fairness

Right!...

CJR is going to hop all over criticizing the leftist, Daily Kos-nutsiness in the blogosphere....

Next year some time?....

Instead of now..... Why?....

I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell to anybody who believes that there is some realistic alternative to explain Mr. McLeary's silly apologistic bias...

Paul McLeary will be right there to castigate Dems.... Next year someting?..... Or as soon as Hell freezes over?...

And he's not about to criticize a Dem unless some GOP candidate has some "jewishness" flopping around in his/her gene pool, of course..... Right?...

Can't have latent "jewishness" going around behind the backs of the readers in McLearyland, now can we, after all?...

After all, the only story Mr.McLeary has labeled to be a "blockbuster" story to date has been the revelation of some "jewishness" in a GOP candidate's gene pool...

Go figure..

We have to keep our journalistic priorities straight in McLearyland, after all, don't we?...

Maybe Mr. McLeary will luck out and find a closted homosexual in the family of a GOP candidate!....

Or maybe an alcoholic or a drug user or some juicy mental illness....

And THEN we'll have a CJR-approved story by damn!....

Whatever it takes to get a leftist in office!...

It's the CJR mantra!...

AhmNee

Thu 11 Oct 2007 01:14 AM

At least we got to witness some more crack reporting by Malkin (reporting while smoking crack). Just one more example why Jamil Hussein was a more reliable source of information than Malkin ever will be.

padikiller

Thu 11 Oct 2007 01:24 AM

AhmNee wrote

At least we got to witness some more crack reporting by Malkin

padikiller agrees

You said it...

She actually INTERVIEWED people and WENT places.... iYou're not going to see this kins effort expended in McLearyland!....

Malkin's work amounted to MUCH more effort than the self-proclaimed "professional journalists" manage to put in a story!....

Speaking of the story...

Why should the poor taxpayers of America pay to subsidize the health insurance of some hippie small businessman who lives in a 3000 square-foot, $300,000 house and sends his kids to private school?

Can you answer this question, Sport?...

Huh?

Matt

Thu 11 Oct 2007 11:42 AM

Are you capable of thinking for yourself? The child is on a scholarship. The 260k house still has a mortgage. The family could not get insurance bc of pre-existing medical conditions from the horrific accident. Bush asked for 200 billion dollars for one year of Iraq war, this is 35 billion for five years for the S-CHIP. A bill that republicans played a large role in crafting. It is a popular govt program. I know its hard to believe that some programs are popular, you cant drown it in a bathtub if it is sucessful. You know I cant remember the vicious campaign against the snowflake babies or Noah McCullough. This was a 12yo saying this program helped me, it can help others. Why are you attacking these people? Malkin refused to debate against Klein. Running away from confrontation and quaking behing that false bravado. Is she part French or something? What a joke she is. "Look they have an expensive house, we are paying for their children. Release the hounds" she screamed. You obeyed like the obedient authoritirian follower you are. What is it like to be exploited in such a way?

I think John Cole, ex-replublican at balloon juice says it "Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers."

AhmNee

Thu 11 Oct 2007 11:43 AM

Because children deserve healthcare? Maybe?

So you're suggesting what? His home is worth $260,000 (according to public records, another fact Malkin got wrong. Funny how she interviewed and went places and still can't get her facts straight.) so they should what? Sell their home?

There's a typical wingnut idea. Make your children homeless in order to give them healthcare for a short time.

Hippy businessman? Funny. Because someone is self employed that makes him a hippy businessman. Looks like their family is the picture of the Conservative Ideal. They aren’t gay. They aren’t divorced. They didn’t abort their children. They aren’t drug addicts or welfare queens. They are property owners, entrepeneurs, taxpayers, and hard-working Americans.

So, how about this. Why would you not?

padikiller

Thu 11 Oct 2007 05:09 PM

If these people want health insurance, I've got some simple advice for them.

1. Sell your $160,000 commercial investment property and by some damned health insurance instead of panhandling for welfare. $160 grand will buy a pre-existing condition rider and will leave you about $159,400 to spare. Make do with that.

2. Sell the 3000 square foot house you live in and rent a cheaper house.

3. Mr. Frost- Stop working "intermittently" and get a damned full-time job. Or better yet... TWO jobs, if that's what it takes to make some money take care of your own family instead of looking for a handout.

4. Mrs. Frost- Quit your low-paying job that "doesn't provide health insurance" and get another low-paying job that DOES provide health insurance.

Four simple steps to solving a non-problem that has McLearyland awash in despair.

Let's have moonbat answer to the fundamental question, shall we?

WHY should taxpayers poorer than these people be forced to subsidize their health care?...

Why should the taxes paid by a janitor in a public school who makes $11.30 an hour (and who chooses to keep the job for the health insurance it gives his kids) be taken out of his paycheck and doled out to a family that lives in a 3000 square foot house?...

HUH?....

HUH?...

padikiller

Thu 11 Oct 2007 05:16 PM

AhmNee Wrote

Why would you not[give welfare to middle class people]?

padikiller responds

Because it's a STUPID idea, that's why.

It is a communist crack dream.

People make better decisions with their own money.

America is about freedom from government instrusion.

Socialized medicine sucks everywhere it's been implemented.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY... It is fundamentally unjust to force poorer people to subsidize lazy richer people..

THAT'S WHY..

padikiller

Thu 11 Oct 2007 05:26 PM

The funny thing is that the NYT is right there to fact-check Malkin... AFTER THE FACT...

Where was the MSM BEFORE the bloggers?

Huh?

AhmNee

Thu 11 Oct 2007 09:23 PM

"Sell your $160,000 commercial investment property and by some damned health insurance instead of panhandling for welfare. $160 grand will buy a pre-existing condition rider and will leave you about $159,400 to spare. Make do with that."

First, if you think $600 will get a family plan health insurance for a month much less a pre-existing condition waiver, you're on crack. Second, what a typical wingnut plan. "You know, Mr. & Mrs. Frost, it's great that you've struggled and made a break into the lower middle class ... now sell your assets and get back below the poverty level where you belong."

"WHY should taxpayers poorer than these people be forced to subsidize their health care?"

You ARE on crack. Mr. Janitor doesn't pay taxes. That's why Health Savings Accounts will never work. You get to save money tax free? Poor people DON'T PAY INTO TAXES. They don't make enough income to meet their deductions. Most families in the lower class get money back from Earned Income Credit. They get more back from taxes than they put in all year.

"The funny thing is that the NYT is right there to fact-check Malkin... AFTER THE FACT"

The MSM reported the publicly available information that the house was worth $260,000 before Malkin posted it was $300,000. Isn't she supposed to be some syndicated journalist or something? So ... she actually IS the MSM. But apparently she can't be bothered to do her OWN fact checking.

"America is about freedom from government instrusion."

Domestic spying is perfectly fine, jailing people indefinitely without being charged is just peachy and throwing trillions into the vortex of this endless war is a fantastic. The absolute epitome of hands off government.

I'm sure you'd be surprised but here's some more evidence of Bush's BS.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

padikiller

Fri 12 Oct 2007 07:54 AM

1. $160,000 WILL buy health insurance for the Frost family for 18 months.. The most expensive Kaiser Permanate plan costs $640 a month... ALL of their other plans are less than $600 a month... $160,000 will let the Frosts get past the prexsisting condition exclusionary period. And leave PLENTY of money for them to "scrape by" till then. To argue otherwise is silly.

2. The Earned Income Credit income limit is less than $39,000 for married couples, regardless of the number of children in a family. This little inconvenient truth means that a married couple with an income of $39,000 doing the RIGHT thing by paying for health insurance would be taxed to subsidize the Frost's welfare handout... Even though the Frosts make more than $45000 a year by choosing to work at low paying jobs that don't provide health insurance. This is just the reality here. Deal with it.

3. A well-bodied man who has chosen to work "intermittently" hasn't "struggled" to "make a break" into the middle class. He's instead a lazy bum who needs to get off his ass and get a damned job to take care of his own family instead of sending his kid out to panhandle for him for him on TV.

I'll ask the question again...

WHY should poorer taxpayers be forced to subsidize the health care of richer taxpayers?

HUH?

AhmNee

Fri 12 Oct 2007 05:23 PM

You are insane if you think $160,000 will cover a family for 18 months. Even if it did. The Frosts in this case have children in need of long term care. What should they do after a year and a half? Sign up for Medicaid, I guess by your standard as you'll have forced them back below the poverty level.

$39,000, by your own admission. If you don't make more than $39000 a year you don't pay into taxes. So you're saying why should people in the $39,000 to $45,000 range need to pay for other's healthcare ... the same people who would be unable to qualify for Medicade but would qualify for SCHIP themselves? You can try to make the program ugly by misrepresenting it as welfare if you'd like to, it doesn't make it true and just shows you as uninformed.

"A well-bodied man who has chosen to work "intermittently" hasn't "struggled" to "make a break" into the middle class. He's instead a lazy bum who needs to get off his ass and get a damned job to take care of his own family ..."

You obviously haven't been jobhunting in the past five years. The job market sucks. It's getting better, certainly. It's still not good. You're making a leap to the conclusion that it was a choice without knowing all the details. It's great for wealthy republicans to decide that family men and women should go out and hold multiple jobs and neglect their families upbringing so that they can make what you think is an "honest wage". That is until with a lack of supervision the kids grow up to be crooks and you scream they should be thrown into prison.

As an adult with ADHD and having spent most of my life undiagnosed, I'm used to people who jump quickly to point out how lazy someone is. In my experience it's usually to cover up the accuser's own shortcomings. Tear down someone else to make yourself feel better.

A family should not need to give up their meager assets and be forced into poverty in order to insure their children grow up healthy. That is NOT what America is about. They should also not be required to work 60-80 hours a week in order to insure the same thing. The idea that people should be required to maintain multiple jobs to support a family is ludicrous. Families need a mother and a father. Isn't that the Conservative ideal? The focus on the family? How does that work when mommy or daddy are never home because they're maintaining employment at multiple jobs? Your argument is self defeating and uninformed.

You deal with it.

padikiller

Fri 12 Oct 2007 10:22 PM

AhmNee Wrote

You are insane if you think $160,000 will cover a family for 18 months

padikiller snipes

$160,000/18 months = $8,888 per month...

WHAT was I thinking?... There's NO way that a mere 8 grand a month (closer to 9 grand, actually) could pay for health insurance!...

In McLearyland, that is...

In Realityville... $600 a month gets the job done nicely...

AhmNee Babbles

You can try to make the program ugly by misrepresenting it as welfare if you'd like to, it doesn't make it true and just shows you as uninformed.

padikiller asks

The difference between "welfare" and taking tax money from the treasury and giving it to Frosts for health insurance premiums.... Would be.... What, exactly?...

Semantics in McLearyland...

AhmNee Wrote From McLearyland

You obviously haven't been jobhunting in the past five years. The job market sucks.

padikiller responds from Realityville

2007 Baltimore unemployment rate = 4.1%

http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/

2007 National unemployment rate = 4.8%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

Baltimore's unemployment rate is fifteen percent LOWER than the national average...

AhmNee Delivers The Moonbat Joke of The Week

A family should not need to give up their meager assets and be forced into poverty in order to insure their children grow up healthy.

padikiller wishes he had a "meager" $160 grand or a 3000 square foot house

A $160,000 commercial investment property is NOT a "meager asset" pal... Neither is a 3000 square foot house...

PERIOD...

YOU REALLY NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS REALITY!...

AhmNee Concludes

They [commercial real estate investors who choose to work intermittently, live in a 3000 square-foot house and send their kids to private school (when they're not sending them out to panhandle for welfare payouts] should also not be required to work 60-80 hours a week in order to insure the same thing [taking adequate care of their own children by providing for their medical care instead of expecting taxpayers to provide for their childrens' welfare].

padikiller scoffs

How about working FORTY hours a week?.... Instead of working "intermittently"?...

How about that idea?...

And, while we're at it...

How about answering my question?...

WHY should poorer taxpayers be forced to subsidize the health care of richer taxpayers?

HUH?

padikiller

Fri 12 Oct 2007 10:39 PM

It gets SILLIER and SILLIER...

Now it turns out that the Frosts sens ALL of their kids to private school (either with other people's money or their own)...

And that they have a CRAPLOAD of equity in their real estate investments... (A commercial investment property they rent out and a 3000 square foot residential property)

But the breaking news here is that it looks like they also have a....

NEW Volvo SUV...

A Chevy Suburban...

AND a Ford F250 pickup truck

The "Goracle" would be compelled to drop his Nobel Peace Prize upon learning of this CO2-belching stable of four-wheel drive luxury mobility...

You moonbats are just silly...

AhmNee

Mon 15 Oct 2007 10:21 AM

$160,000 ... 18 months ... $8,888 obviously I was having a bad math skills moment.

The fact still remains that because a family with a moderate income and meager assets (a house worth $260,000 is on the low end of average regardless of the square footage) should not lose everything they have because they don't have employment that provides healthcare. The government has a responsibility to make sure it's citizens are healthy. You can conjecture about how the family could pay for healthcare on it's own if you'd like. But the simple fact is that you have to right to start auctioning off a families assets and drive them back into the lower income class. Their children require long term care and whatever you auction off will not last anyway. In 5 years you'd see this family back on the SCHIP if not medicaid. Your stance is utterly futile.

Why should poorer people pay for the Frost's healthcare? Because it's a responsible use of taxes and anyone in the $39k-45k range who's taxes would go to the SCHIP program would be eligible themselves for the program.

I'm sorry you're on the losing end of this fight, Padi. It's a popular program. It's implementation is long overdue in this country. You wingnuts want to spend trillions to kill people, the least you can do is cough up a few million to keep people healthy.

padikiller

Mon 15 Oct 2007 07:34 PM

First Rule of Adulthood

Provide for your children.

Ex. Before you let your kids go without health insurance... Work. Consistently (instead of "intermittently" or "part-time").

Experiencing "work" as a continuing process, instead of as an isolated series of disconnected events puncutated by extended periods of lazy-ass couch-sitting, provides you with M-O-N-E-Y that is Y-O-U-R-S because you have E-A-R-N-E-D it.

Use this "earned money" to pay for your kids INSTEAD of packing them into your NEW VOLVO SUV and sending them off to panhandle for tax money..

If that "working" thing doesn't do it... Sell or borrow against any six-figure commercial investement real estate you own. Or sell one of your THREE SUV's. OR maybe move out of your 3000 square foot house and into something a tad more economical.

Again these actions will provide M-O-N-E-Y that is Y-O-U-R-S instead of mooching O-T-H-E-R P-E-O-P-L-E'-S M-O-N-E-Y from the public treasury.

See how easy?

AhmNee

Tue 16 Oct 2007 11:25 AM

Translated: How dare the Frosts endorse a program that isn't a conservative agenda item. Get back below poverty level where you belong.

People shouldn't have to sell off their assets in order to make certain their children have healthcare. It's a simple concept, really.

Your solution is to drain them of money and assets until they're poor. That's not a plan worth discussing.

Expanding SCHIP is. It's a good plan who's time is overdue. America as a world leader should see that it's children are healthy. Healthy children = good. Driving hard working families into poverty = bad.

padikiller

Tue 16 Oct 2007 06:20 PM

AhmNee Wrote

How dare the Frosts endorse a program that isn't a conservative agenda item. Get back below poverty level where you belong.

padikiller keeps it real

The Frosts could sell their $160,000 commercial real estate investment property, put the proceeds in an FDIC-insured E-Trade savings account at 4.7 % APR and end up with more than $626 per month to buy their kids some health insurance without touching the principal!

So much for the "meager asset" stupidity....

And this transfer of just ONE of their "meager" six-figure investments, while leaving them having to make do on the utter cusp of poverty in their 3000 square-foot house, would leave all four of their kids in private school... And would let them keep the Volvo SUV (and the Chevy Suburban and Ford F250) that keeps them just a hair-breath from the breadlines...

Such fiscal responsibility could do ALL this WITHOUT requiring the undermotivated Mrs. and Mr. Frost to alter their "part-time" and "intermittent" work habits, respectively... And WITHOUT forcing them to send their kids panhandling for welfare payouts on TV (until the government denies their food stamp claim, anyway)!...

AhmNee

Wed 17 Oct 2007 10:07 AM

Keep riding the "make them sell their assets" train, Padikins. Dubya's approval rating has slipped another couple percent, presumably over the SCHIP and Iraq.

American's are supposed to be finding ways to support themselves when they retire due to the failing Social Security system, they're supposed to foot the bill for the exorbitant costs of healthcare and they're not allowed to gather any assets in the meantime.

Instead, we'll slash some taxes for wealthy business owners and throw trillions of dollars at an unjustified and unwinable war.

Go team.

You must be so proud. 24% approval rating and falling.

padikiller

Wed 17 Oct 2007 11:20 AM

AhmNee Moves On

You must be so proud. 24% approval rating and falling.

padikiller responds

I'm no cheerleader for President Bush. I think he should face impeachment for failing to secure our borders after 9/11 and for failing to enforce the immigration laws he has sworn to uphold.

However, painting voter dissatification as a GOP problem is dishonest... As is confusing the Congessional approval rating (24%) with President Bush's approval rating (33%).

"Congress approval has rebounded to 24% -- the largest one-month increase in support for Congress seen since the Democrats took majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January. Nearly all of the recent increase is due to improved ratings of Congress among Republicans."

Read the Reality and weep, Moonbats...

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28741

padikiller

Wed 17 Oct 2007 11:42 AM

Hold on...

There is a new al-Reuters poll that shows President Bush's approval rating at 24%...

But is also shows that the President's approval rating is more than TWICE as high as the Democratic Congress' miserable 11% approval rating...

As usual, AhmNee has displayed his selective tolerance for the truth...

AhmNee

Wed 17 Oct 2007 01:09 PM

Of course Congress has an abysmal approval rating. They promised to stand up to the administration and none of the majority leaders has shown the backbone to do so.

The approval rating of the Congress was never in question nor did I suggest it was. You're the one bringing it up to start a contest. As I've told you before, Padikins. I'm not actually a Democrat. I'm not truly a liberal. I have a liberal bend when it comes to domestic policy and a much more conservative one when it comes to foreign policy. I voted for Bush before I voted against him. He's done more to singlehandedly run this country into the ground than any president in history.

For all that the American people have to put up with from their government, as the only superpower left in the world and for being the wealthiest country on Earth, it's my opinion that no resident of the USA should ever have to worry about being adequately fed or have to suffer poor health. We owe it to our people to treat them better.

What you propose isn't freedom, it's feudalism.