The Dynamo Policy Research Group - Latest comments on Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Ross Mittiga [Member] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Ross Mittiga [Member] — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:30:06 +0000

RE: Concerned College Student

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.

Concerned College Student [Visitor] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Concerned College Student [Visitor] — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:24:40 +0000

Unfortunately, this article is very biased, and is an attack against media outlets that present the facts like everyone else, however they choose to present the facts that other media outlets aren't. Let it be stated again that FoxNews is the most watched news in the country. Talk shows with host giants like O'Reilly and Beck are meant to be opinion shows, and partisans shouldn't compare the caliber of news of the network through such a distorted lens.

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?

aDCBeast [Visitor] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

aDCBeast [Visitor] — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:10:55 +0000

This article and the comments in response show me that none of you realize how much propaganda is being thrown at American citizens. The spread of propaganda goes well beyond cable tv. Our Congresspeople spread propaganda every day. They get handed their talking points from their staff and they speak known lies. The media outlets are only conduits for political party lies.

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.

Ross Mittiga [Member] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Ross Mittiga [Member] — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:09:25 +0000

Here are a couple of new links this week that I think are really relevant, and are definitely interesting reads:

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/

Ross Mittiga [Member] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Ross Mittiga [Member] — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:54:28 +0000

Thanks for all the excellent dissent and feedback here.

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.

Lance Legel [Member] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Lance Legel [Member] — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:04:05 +0000

As it starts, this article seems ironically partisan. And then you keep reading, realizing that Ross analyzes the issue from multiple angles; the value of his analysis emerges.

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.

Rob Myers [Visitor] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Rob Myers [Visitor] — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:40:51 +0000

I find it interesting that there isn't really a vote FOR Obama-care anywhere in here, but rather a rally against "misinformation" and somehow (we're not sure) evil corporations have a role in it.
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.

Jordanna [Visitor] in response to: Effects of Propaganda on Health Care Reform

Jordanna [Visitor] — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:08:05 +0000

'This "script" of suggestive language and tactics underlines the partisan dividedness paralyzing the debate so far' is such an incisive sentence. And the article,overall, is a well substantiated, sober evaluaion of a relevant topic; particularly corporate influence in the media. Also, the unfortunate rapacity with which the people who need healthcare the most consume misinformation, mangle it with media (corporate) bred paranoia, chomp and froth on entirely the wrong bit, and are then blindsided by their own disenfranchisement and galvanized to be so rigidly ignorant they can't then procure or even understand their own rights.

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."