| « A Dialogue on the Rights of Corporations | Health Care Reform: It Can't Happen Soon Enough » |
Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform
09/25/09
It is evident that in recent months loudly vocalized right-wing propaganda has greatly influenced the health care reform debate in the United States.
The perspectives and policies adopted by the right, manifested chiefly in the legislative bloc of the Republican Party, have been facilitated by very visible and permeating campaigns conducted by conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and cemented by Republican party leaders like Sarah Palin and John Boehner.
Many of these conservative personalities are utilizing rhetoric with the derived intent of aggravating a confused base of voters. This rhetoric, fueled by often baseless lies and disproportionate emphasis on dissenting viewpoints in the policy debate, has misdirected a large percentage of voters in their understanding of proposed health care bills.
A strong example is the over-representation of anti-health care perspectives via contributor commentary on Fox News, a right-leaning news outlet, which is clearly outlined in the graph below. Note: This data was taken during two days in which nationwide town hall meetings on the health care topic were reaching sometimes violent and often incoherent piques:
(Graph courtesy of Think Progress)
The featured conservative personalities often tend towards over-generalizing and promoting the same (usually formally dismissed) accusations. This has been in large part due to Dr. Frank Lutz, a senior Republican consultant, and his talking points memos on the "correct" Republican response to health care reform. His “script” of suggestive language and tactics that should be adopted by Republican speakers underlines the partisan dividedness on the health care issue.
Follow up:
Here’s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What’s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.
The somewhat comical, albeit unfortunate, effect on the misinformed public has been surfacing in Youtube videos following the recent “9/12 protests”, which were largely organized by Glenn Beck, a conservative commentator on Fox News.
This turn towards widely propagated misinformation comes at a time of unprecedented corporate influence. The mode in which conservative politicians and more recently, Supreme Court Justices, are addressing this is creating spillover effects in every sector of American public policy. Of course, any direct influence by corporations who stand to gain is hard to see, especially in their dealings with any public office holder. Disconcerting moves can be seen more clearly however in other places, particularly in the corporate ability to put pressure on mainstream media outlets, often constricting the exposure of opposing viewpoints to that of the interests of the institution exerting influence.
Of course, with all of the recent focus on right-wing rhetoric, and the attention paid to it in this blog, it is important to understand that conservatives aren’t the only ones that utilize these tactics to advance their goals. Recently, liberal advocacy groups have spread misinformation, an example being in the Joe Wilson controversy. Right wing propaganda in health care reform is more closely being monitored and addressed because of its frequency of incidents, loudness of its proponents, persistence on behalf of the interest groups and individuals spreading the misinformation and because of how all of that is culminating and in effect derailing actual policy debate.
That said, it is also critical to point out that moderate conservatism has sought to distance itself from the rhetoric and frenzy sponsored by its more radical counterparts. For instance, Joe Scarborough, who was a Republican congressman in the 1990’s has started his “GOP Honor Roll”. Conservative biographer Sam Tanenhaus, in a recent interview with NewsWeek, expressed dissent from more vocal and radical conservatives, advancing the notion that the partisan toned rhetoric and ineffectual leadership are resulting in a decline of conservatism.
It’s also important to note that several news outlets have done their best to illustrate the misunderstanding that has fostered among the American public. For example, Time magazine recently published an article that critically examined Glenn Beck’s role in current political debate and NewsWeek has continually and directly brought up and thoroughly dismissed the plethora of health care lies in several published articles.
Of course, with all of the forces at work on both sides, and the propaganda that is rampantly tearing across the political spectrum, it is easy to miss the point, which is that the US is in dire need of health care reform. Currently, millions of Americans are out of health care, and the costs of providing health care to those who can currently afford it is rising at unprecedented rates. There are legitimate reasons to oppose elements of any bill, and there are ways to bring legitimacy to arguments surrounding conflicting opinions in policy development. However, it is critically important to the well being of our republic that all opposition be presented in true-to-fact and civil fashions to facilitate the democratic process and address issues as they arise.
9 comments
"Here’s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What’s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.
(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/)"
Causation is not implied by correlation. Fox cannot be accused of intentionally spreading misinformation simply because its audience is against the Obama administration's policies. I am certainly not going to call Fox "fair and balanced," but when all of the other major networks are in Obama's pocket, conservatives will naturally go towards a network that reports news they are interested in and agree with.
I am not going to say that Fox has had no hand in the spread of misinformation, but placing all of the blame on one network seems close-minded to me.
And the article isn't narrownminded. You spoke about misinformatiom relayed by media outlets other than fox and to point to a magically inherent dislike of Obama as capable of fostering such outrageous misunderstannding is a person-blame tactic, not to mention it totally undermines the intelligence of the American people. The sheer staunchness with which the American people believe and defend such outrageous misinformation simply would not exist without the rhetoric of ostensibly credible newscasters which the same confused citizenry depend on for their information and cite so consistently in reference.
I would say the article represents a pretty circumspect and balanced view of the state of media as a whole:
"But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX......."
"Of course, with all of the recent focus on right-wing rhetoric, and the attention paid to it in this blog, it is important to understand that conservatives aren’t the only ones to utilize these tactics to advance their goals..."
And the reason for the focus on predominantly right wing media is clearly delineated:
"Right wing propaganda in health care reform is more closely being monitored and addressed because of its frequency of incidents, loudness of its proponents, persistence on behalf of the interest groups and individuals spreading the misinformation and because of all of that’s culminating effect of derailing actual policy debate."
Sorry, I don't mean to exclude the bottom part where you state that "Currently, millions of Americans are out of health care, and the costs of providing health care to those who can currently afford it is rising at unprecedented rates." Or, you could have said "soooo, since we're stuck on this idea, it's crazy not to support it, cause you know..."it's expensive and stuff, out there."
Rehtoric? I know something of it and, you know what? Sure. Beck, Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, the whole damn bunch are guilty of some. So is the President. Did you not see the video where he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
If you didn't click on the 45 second video I'll paraphrase: "I am a proponent of a single payer system, Universal health care. Everyone in, nobody out...but we may not get there right away."
Guess what? People saw that. Sure, maybe the house bill or the Baucus bill doesn't do it immediately, but it's a step in that direction making the next step not a leap, but merely a hop.
I find hilarity in liberal ideology that says "these people are voting or acting against their own interest" as though they are merely puppets to be pulled in whatever direction the prevailing rhetoric can move them. They find it offensive and so do I. Sure, maybe there isn't a thing in the bills titled "death panels" but there is all kinds of wiggle room for a NICE-type panel (that's in the UK, folks) that can dictate what treatments are allowed to be given and which aren't. You think it's a leap that people extrapolate that language and say "pretty damn good chance granny needs a hip replacement and someone says it's too much money for an old person, take the pill"?
I don't. The problem isn't "Right wing Propaganda" but rather the fact that people don't want to add to the national debt (and don't tell me the non-partisan CBO is lying) and don't want to force people to buy insurance they may not want or need. You know, that old thing about Freedom we're so hung up on. Including freedom to fail.
Reform? Hell yes. Lift regulations that restrain insurance policies to a state-by-state basis and let REAL competition have at it. Let people be rewarded for healthy lifestyles like drivers are rewarded for not having accidents or tickets. Make health care portable so it's not attached to people's jobs. Let individuals reap the tax benefits from purchasing their own policies that businesses get. Push Tort reform, which has done wonders in a number of states including Texas.
Don't give me this "Right wing propaganda" when people really just think the Left's ideas on health care "reform" suck. They've spoken and are speaking. Find me one poll that shows a majority, or anything approaching it, favors Obama's ideas and I'll shut up.
Finally, Democrats have what is largely considered to be the greatest orator of a generation and the guy goes on 5 Sunday talk shows to push his agenda and more people come out against his proposals. The problem isn't the vitriol or the propaganda, it's the product.
Peace. I'm out.
I especially like his inclusion of the corporate context paragraph, his quantity and quality of link-references, and, of course, his link to my article.
Regarding the sharp public comments: thank you. I speak for The Dynamo in welcoming reasoned and sincere responses. I hope that we can naturally keep them coming, from around the world.
Finally, @ Rob Meyers: "Find me one poll...", this poll won't shut you up -- because it supports many of your assertions -- but it does evidence that 65% of Americans support a "government-administered health insurance plan". President Obama does, in fact, support such a plan.
To address a few things- the poll Lance posted is a strong representation of a major pull towards a public option choice. It also, I think, underlines the confusion among voters in the question that reads: "Will the changes to the health care system under consideration create government organizations that will make decision about when to stop medical care to the elderly?" To which, a whopping 47% replied "Don't Know Enough". Of course, that poll is not the only one that has shown strong public support for public plans. Survey USA just did a detailed poll that directly tackles the popularity of health care reform. It specifically asks about the choice of a public option, the amount of citizens who favor Obama's current plan, etc. and it provides detailed sample data. In all cases, a majority supported strong health care reform to the effect of having government run or sponsored plans.
As far as Obama stating that he is in favor of a public option - that can't be disputed and in all reality, I fail to see the issue here. It certainly would provide benefit to Americans at large (although one can argue the degree of benefit) and moreover is in line with his stated ideological goals. I think he is consistent with that, and his support of other, less comprehensive bills have been political compromise in the sake of progress.
As for the price tag, which is a strong opponent claim – well, that is a completely separate issue than addressed above. I would say there is a wealth of proponents and opponents to health care reform initiatives that would be able to argue the costs of reform, both hidden and direct, and how that might affect the tax payer. There is a lot of literature on how an improved health care system in time would benefit the country far more than it would cost it, and this subject is actually brought up in another Dynamo blog by Lance Legel.
And last of all, to address insurance market reform, or the deregularization of the insurance market, I would say failure is not an option here, being that the cost is literally thousands of American’s lives and welfare. Is a person who has their house foreclosed because of remarkable medical bills experiencing freedom? As Thomas Hobbes would say, freedom is freedom from constraints. Isn't the medical system as is, a constraint on the abilities of most to find reliable care for an affordable price? I technically don't have the freedom to be seen on a non-emergency basis, and certainly not with any follow-up care, and if I had to visit on an emergency basis, I could expect to pay very exorbitant fees. And although the converse of that statement could also be true, that a public option would be constraining in itself, I think at one point you have to recognize relative gains, or relative freedom, and accept that by allowing everyone access to care limits very few. Going on, I think security, which is the ultimate goal here, is also the best road to prosperity. This can be seen in military/power-politic perspectives, and I think the same is true domestically with health care. When people feel safe, are assured that they aren't one broken leg, or sick child, or cancer diagnosis away from being in massive debt they might have the initiative to focus their resources on other things. That production capability would only provide good for the country.
Anyway, hope that clarifies a few things on my end but I hope the discussion keeps going! This is such an important issue and should be debated thoroughly.
Here is one about how Republican rhetoric is being used currently to stir up sentiment among seniors:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-27/how-the-gop-scares-grandma/
And this one is just all out scary:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/28/werthmann-nazism-socialism/
Fox News allows right wing propagandists to have free reign on their shows while CNN, MSNBC, etc. naively believe that viewers can see through right wing propagandists when their ideas are challenged so they allow these propagandists on their shows to participate in debate. The reality is that whenever you let a propagandist have air time they will win over some viewers. Even if you can show definitively that they are lying.
That is why right wing propagandists love going on CNN, MSNBC, etc. They know they are going to win over a small percentage of viewers with propaganda.
Fox News skews the guest lists for its shows so heavily with GOP propagandists because they know this. They accept this fact.
When is CNN, MSNBC going to clue in?
Any airtime for GOP propagandists is allowing some viewers will be swayed even when they are known to be lying.
33% of Americans still believe Saddam had WMDs. Still! They were told the lies 7 years ago and those lies are still believed even after the WMD inspectors testified before Congress that there were none.
I would have a simple policy. If you can't prove that you are not lying then you don't get on air. Sure it would mean the vast majority of people would not get airtime and most political shows would probably go off air but so what.
The news used to be about telling us what happened in the past. Now they get into speculation about the future. This is the open door that the propagandists need to affect viewers. "Hey let's have liars come on and let them influence viewers with lies about the future". Well that is where we are at now. News channels let people on air to spread lies about the future. These are not reasoned educated guesses. They are known lies.
So political news shows should not offer their opinions why something is good or bad. That is propaganda. From the left and right.
They should stick to presenting the facts. A bill printed on paper. An action someone took. All in the past. Nothing speculating about the future.
It's easy to tell that this article is a stereotypical example of a college student out of touch with the rest of the nation. Truth is that health care reform is widely unpopular with Americans, and the REAL INJUSTICE is that the left is wasting taxpayer dollars and legislators' time trying to push this agenda. With all of the wasted effort that the Obama administration is spending to try to stifle the opinion of these conservative talk show hosts, is another blog like this really necessary?
Although I would like to address any inadequacies in my article, I do not feel that you exposed any legitimate problems, certainly none that have not already been explained.
That in mind, I think it is important to note a few things:
First, this article is not an attack on Fox News; it is an observant and detailed account of the amount of rhetoric and propaganda-based fallacies that are employed by that network and others, in light of the effect it has on viewers and listeners. The information presented in this article is accurate, comprehensive, and not meant to be singularly offensive. It is addressing a problem, where (by means clearly substantiated evidence) a problem exists.
Second, a pundit, be him O'Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Beck, Matthews, or any rhetoric-based opinion journalist, has a moralistic responsibility to act in a fashion that befits their post. People derive their news from these people, and even though there is some expectation of a slant, they expect facts. Unfortunately, the often baseless rhetoric that these hosts utilize affects the perspective of the public, which is easily shown by the information I provided above, in ways that are so corrosive and irresponsible it is damaging the very pursuit of actual civil political discourse in this country.
To address your second paragraph: as I have stated earlier (both in the blog and in responses) a majority of Americans do actually favor Public Option health care. This fact is acknowledged not only by proponents of the legislative measures, but by opponents of it as well. The real discrepancy lies then with a minority of people dictating terms to a majority of citizens for reasons that cannot be grounded. To illustrate this, you can look at remarks made recently by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who described her role as "protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority". To even more clearly illuminate this point, you can see Fox News Anchor, Shep Smith, in an interview with Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) where the senator states that it is ultimately the role of the the Senate to decide what is best for the people (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/fox-newss-shep-smith.php).
The sad truth is Concerned College Student, that this blog was meant to be wholly comprehensive and unbiased, and to present a meaningful link to the damage rhetoric is causing this meaningful debate. By directly attacking moderates like me, who have facts in their arsenals, conservatives run the risk of alienating whole sections of the population. But politics aside, with any amount of reason, it is readily apparent how providing health care not only would improve the livelihoods of MILLIONS of Americans, but how that improvement would so likely provide for the prosperity of our nation. Sick, in-debt people are less productive, less ambitious, and less willing to commit to education and other pursuits that could help continue to define our country as a world leader. Employ capitalism- the public option is meant to be a competitive measure, not a punitive one! Loosening of the markets should be a measure we can all agree on, and health care for everyone should be even more universally accepted. At the end of the day however, in considering any method we use, the bottom line should be far less important than the human cost.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
Through researched policy publications and targeted public services, we help equip and motivate systemic public action.
More about us »
