Assorted people in journalism explain to Politico’s Michael Calderone that health care reportage, in addition to being a challenge for reporters, does not hold people’s attention. A sample:
MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan….:“Health care is bad for ratings.”
…“It’s not only not a cable TV-friendly story; it’s not a journalism-friendly story,” said John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC.Harwood, also a political writer for The New York Times, explained that reporters need to first understand the intricacies and nuances of health care policy before they can then try getting the story across to viewers and readers…“It’s incredibly complex to try and explain to people,” Harwood said.
…Television executives, correspondents and pundits are quick to point out that health care is perhaps the most vital issue facing the country, and it’s their professional obligation to present the facts and arguments to the public.
“Not a journalism-friendly story” because of the “intricacies and nuances.” Honest, I guess, but….yikes.
This just goes to show the lack of intelligence in the MSM. This is why they feed us such BS most of the time. Did they ever think that because they have such a small grasp of what is going on with the health care debate that it comes through in their broadcasting. Causing people to turn away. Maybe they could start on the story by reporting, that the Senators and Representatives that get the biggest campaign bribes from the health insurance and drug industries, are the ones that are strongly against health care reform. Maybe they could interview the day to day people who are suffering terribly because of no health care, or even worse, the people who paid for health insurance but still can't get health care! Then name the health care insurer.
#1 Posted by Masi, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 01:18 AM
I think Masi has it right. I've come to the conclusion as well that most political reporters, well, just aren't very bright. Look at the Politico boys. Not only are they not very smart, but they are lousy writers as well. Their only talent lies in their aggressive gossip-mongering. The same goes for the cable news people. They are chosen on the basis of looks and most of them are bimbos. Moreover, these privileged, smug, and cynical princesses find it too difficult and distracting to put any effort into understanding a complex issue like health care policy. That's why they snort and giggle about process every day, because that's the easy part.
There is a way to make even health care policy clear and easy to understand, given someone with actual talent. Look at Matt Taibbi writing about Goldman Sachs. You might take issue with his writing style, but at the end of one of his gripping pieces, you understand ALL about what happened in the financial meltdown. He's not only a good writer, but understands his subject.
And for television news, I bet no one can even name an intelligent, talented TV journalist on network or cable news who would be up to the job to address complex issues. They seem to be chosen from among the vainest, shallowest, most vacuous in the pool of people with symmetrical features and good hair.
#2 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 08:26 AM