As a political science teacher for twenty five years, I argued that the mainstream media was not systematically biased against progressives.
I was wrong. But I’m still not sure what the problem is. I don’t know if it is the economic interests of publishers—which I still kind of doubt is important; or the fact that political reporters have a vested interest in making politicians and citizens seem even more divided than they really are; or whether the habitual skepticism of reporters makes them focus more on the likelihood of failure than the possibility of success. And maybe all of these factors are exacerbated because political reporters really only have the time to understand the gross politics of issues rather than the details of politics or policy.
But for one or another of these reasons, most of the news reports about health care reform in the mainstream media, and certainly in the Philadelphia Inquirer, have been unwarrantedly negative or selectively misleading about the prospects for health care reform.
The latest examples in the Washington press is the utter inability of the mainstream media to understand the difference between doing health care reform through reconciliation and fixing the Senate bill through reconciliation.
The False Uprising Against Health Care Reform
At the Inquirer, things have been a little better, but not much. The paper has consistently given the misleading impression that there is a national uprising against the Obama plan.
When the tea baggers came out to the Constitution Center last summer, the Inquirer reported that the audience was split between supporters and opponents of health care reform. In fact, three quarter of the people the room supported health care reform, only we were so surprised by the nastiness of the opponents that we were quieter.
When the tea baggers came out to Senator Specter’s first two town halls, the Inquirer reported that there was an uprising against health care reform. When supporters of health care outnumbered opponents in 35 of 40 Congressional or Senatorial town halls in August and September, the Inquirer was silent about all but one, and the report on Congressman Sestak’s event in Philadelphia gave the impression that there was significant opposition to reform when only about 10 out of 800 people stood with the tea baggers.
And, of course, of the five big rallies we have done on health care reform with over 400 people in Philadelphia, the Inquirer covered only two, and then with small reports and a picture buried in the B section.
Misinterpreting the polls
Today, Tom Fitzgerald reports that President Obama is in Montgomery County because “the latest polls suggest many independents are skeptical of a health-care overhaul.”
This is factually true but, nonetheless misleading.
For, the latest poll, the only one take after the health care summit on the 25th, shows that Independents favor the legislation 43-41. (http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm). Moreover, these numbers in this poll and others one taken on the issue conflate opponents from the right and from the left.
And when you dig a little deeper into the numbers, it turns out that of all of those who oppose it the legislation, 37% say it does not go far enough, which certainly means that a much larger plurality of independents want this plan or something stronger to pass. And that’s the relevant number both in terms of the politics of Congress and the politics of the 2010 election.
Senator McConnell keeps saying that Democrats are going to pay a price for supporting health care reform. But if a lot of the opposition to the President’s plan comes from the left, as it does, then McConnell is blowing smoke. No one who wants the President’s proposal to be stronger than it is will vote for a Republican.
The real worry is that Democratic progressives won’t vote at all if we don’t pass health care reform. But in the Inquirer’s best analysis of health care date, by Dick Polman, pointed out yesterday that this is exactly why Democrats have to pass the bill and then spend the time between March and November pointing out all the good things in the bill, including the good things that start this year, such as regulations on insurance companies that prohibit them from denying people coverage or charging them more if they have pre-existing conditions.
Counting people inside and outside the room
Of course, let’s give the Inquirer some credit. Their report on the event was better than that of the York Daily News which in an AP article reports that 200 tea baggers were protesting health care reform outside the event. No mention of the fifty of so supporters of the legislation outside—or the 2000 supporters inside.