Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
Two months ago, the idea that a news cycle would be dominated by the distinction between a âpublic optionâ and a âhealth care co-opâ would have seemed laughable. But that unlikely turn of events has come to pass this weekâand the dynamic that brought us to this point reveals some not-entirely-flattering insights about how the press operates.
First, the good news: the coverage of the public option debate reflects the sort of attention to policy detail the press is often chastised for neglecting. And for the most part, the terms of the debate have been articulated fairly clearlyâa reader whoâs taken the time to do more than scan headlines should have a sense of what the âpublic optionâ entails, and if the idea of a âco-opâ remains muddled, itâs because, as The New York Times recently pointed out, the lawmakers pushing it have been a little unclear themselves.
But whatâs remained hazy in much of the coverage is just what the difference between these two choices amounts toâwhat all this sound and fury signifies. In part, thatâs because thereâs real uncertainty involved in projecting how either approach would play out. But itâs also because the pressâs interest is not chiefly in the specific policy decision, but in the political disputes that policy brings to light.
Hereâs how that dispute has come to be: The idea of a government-run public insurance option was proposed as a way to create competition and drive down costs. When Republicans, industry groups, and conservative Democrats all said they wouldnât support it, the idea of non-profit âco-opsâ was floated as an alternative. But liberal activists and Democrats in Congressâhungry for a decisive win after eight years of Bush/Cheney and a mildly disappointing start to the Obama administrationâhave vowed that they wonât support reform that doesnât include the public option. This created a scenario in which, in the unlikely event nobody backs down, reform will fail. Meanwhile, the White House seems to have been caught flat-footed.
This is juicy stuff for political junkies, and its themesâconflict! power struggles! standoffs and showdowns!âare right in the mediaâs wheelhouse. But the fact that the actors in this political drama have decided to go to war on this issue does not necessarily mean itâs worth going to war overâand those of us watching the debate count on the press to tell us whatâs beneath the fuss. By instead amplifying the political contest, the coverage just gives transcendent (if passing) significance to an underlying policy debate that, in the end, may be of only moderate importance.
A few skeptical observers, though, have begun to push back against the idea that the public option is the sine qua non of health care reform, including, most forcefully, Steve Pearlstein. In todayâs Washington Post, Pearlstein writes:
The public option is nothing more than a political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don’t want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market. It is the Maginot Line of health-care policy, and just like those stubborn French generals, liberal Democrats have vowed to defend it even if it means losing the war.
Pearlstein is writing with the freedom that comes with being a columnist, of course. But thereâs no reason that straight news coverage canât include both skepticism about the dominant narrative and an independent assessment of the likely outcomes of competing policy proposals. As long as the press is relying on others to set the agenda, though, thatâs not likely to happen.
There is, of course, a much broader problem with this approach to covering a story: when a policy is not questioned in the political arena, it doesnât get examined by the press, either. The media was roundlyâand rightlyâcriticized for joining Democrats in Congress in overlooking the warning signs about the war in Iraq, and it engaged in some ritual self-flagellation after the fact. But we are now in the midst of an escalation of U.S. involvement in Afghanistanâa policy choice that may prove more meaningful, and will certainly be less reversible, than the fate of the public option. But despite the recent surge in reporting from that nation, the central questionâis the current strategy the right one?âhasnât had the airing it deserves.
There may be several reasons for that void: a general sense of war fatigue, a willingness to cut Obama slack on foreign policy just because heâs not George Bush, even sympathy among national security reporters for the new emphasis on counterinsurgency. But the biggest factor is that thereâs simply not much of an âother sideâ to report. The Obama administration is not caught between two hostile campsâin fact, itâs not facing a serious organized effort from any source to hold it to account. And the mainstream press seems to have forgottenâif it ever knewâhow to play that role on its own. Where consensus prevails, thereâs no story.
Politics is a funny thing sometimes. People of every persuasion get invested in things for idiosyncratic reasons, and once theyâre invested, they donât like to let go. Getting in the midst of the ensuing tussle, documenting its every twist and turn, is one of the things journalists do. But we also need to make space for another sort of journalismâone that involves standing off to the side a bit and calling our attention to the things that, no matter how much weâd like not to think about them, really matter.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.