Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Reporting What They Say, Not What They Think
An NYT article does a nice job of simply reporting what politicians say as their reason for opposing a public option, instead of doing the mind-reading exercise of telling readers what they think:
"Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware, said he was trying to devise such an alternative to meet 'centrist concerns about the public option.' Over and over, Mr. Carper said, the centrists have made clear that they do not want to create an insurance plan that is 'government-run or government-funded.'"
The point is that these politicians may oppose a public plan because they have done a careful assessment of its merits and decided that it requires too much government involvement in health care or they may oppose it because they get lots of campaign contributions from the insurance industry (other explanations exist as well). The reporter does not know their true motives, he/she can only know what the politician claims as their motives. This is what they should pass on to readers.
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (7)
Sensationlist or slanted reporting, however, revolves heavily around motive and intent, even if only the "facts" are reported.
What's newsworthy becomes hopelessly interwined with what's intended, by virtue of how it's painted as "right" or "wrong". Context is everything.
(1) "Senator Bought Out stated he was not influenced by campaign contributions, as he proceeded to describe the Public Option as full blown Obamacare socialism."
(2) "Senator Bought Out, who has received extensive contributions from the insurance and health care industry (facts that imply motive), proceeded to ..."
(3) "Senator Bought Out ... when asked about stark contradictions of his support for massive government interference and spending in other areas (facts that imply motive conflict), refused to respond as not relevant."
(4) "There's nothing newsworthy to report today about Senator Bought Out, since no conflicts in motive have surfaced that haven't already been reported."
Posted by: izzatzo | November 18, 2009 6:42 AM
Someone opposed to a government role is not a centrist, unless they are in the U.S. Senate.
Since a vast majority favors a government role, such people opposed are on the extreme fringe.
Posted by: some guy in a cube | November 18, 2009 8:18 AM
If the reporter has access to industry campaign or other political contributions data, he is obligated to include that information in their reporting too.
It behooves me that seldom this info is included in reports. It should be required of politicians to provide the information on their web site and reporters to site them diligently.
Posted by: Nassim Sabba | November 18, 2009 9:38 AM
Yes, reporters need to report the facts of what was said. But, as John Stewart has repeatedly done, reporters need to go beyond just reporting the facts and actually check if the statements are true, particularly when coming from the mouths of politicians.
Posted by: Chris V | November 18, 2009 1:10 PM
What people going into the exchanges will need is (a) a non-profit plan (b) with the sole purpose of serving the customer's best interests, including a legal obligation to work diligently and permanently to reduce the costs of a policy to the insureds; and (c) with extensive negotiating clout with providers. A Federal public option would meet all three criteria, and it would not really be a "government-run" plan if it is set up as a separate Federally-chartered corporation. State-based public options (only for those choosing within the exchange) for all but probably the four largest states would definitely not meet the third criteria. (Whether they are co-ops or not -- one form of non-profit -- is irrelevant.) Regional public options -- self-funded interstate compacts (co-ops or not) with Federal recognition and start-up funding -- could meet all three if the populations they serve are adequate. Five such regions would be serving populations the size of France. Eight would serve 40 million each, larger than most European countries. Regional compacts would not be "government-run" since the real meaning of that phrase is run by "THE government," or the Federal government. If the rule is that they have to be self-funded, the competition would hardly be unfair either.
Posted by: urban legend | November 18, 2009 5:40 PM
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) just wrote an editorial in the New Englang Journal of Medicine lambasting the Democratic health plan. Nothing special. But scientific journals make you disclose any conflicts of interests.
Since 2005 Grassley has received more than 1.8 million dollar from the health industry. (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00001758&newMem=N&cycle=2010).
Here's how Grassley descrbes his potential conflicts of interests:
...relevant financial relationships outside the submitted work: none.
...relevant nonfinancial associations: Senator Grassley receives campaign donations from a variety of sources, possibly including health care interests. However, his
campaign operations and his senatorial operations are completely separate. This piece and the opinions herein are solely the product
of his senatorial operations.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/data/NEJMp0911111/DC1/1
Why can't newspapers have disclosure forms like scientific journals do?
Posted by: wp200 | November 19, 2009 6:48 AM
John Lynch
Physician
Seattle Washington, USA
Disclosure: None
November 19, 2009 • 2:18 PM .I am curious how Chuck Grassley has no disclosures regarding possible conflicts on his disclosure form? He explains this by stating that his senatorial duties are separate from his campaign duties. This sounds like a doctor saying that the pharma rep visiting the office and providing lunch has no impact on what drugs he or she prescribes. Published research supports the role of influence on decision making, and I suspect that the Senator is not immune, no matter what he says.
As for my opinion, I prefer the single payer option. Everyone deserves health-care.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2009 8:58 AM