MediaWatch: August 1994
Table of Contents:
- MediaWatch: August 1994
- Reporters Hold Anti-Clinton Ads to Higher Standard of Disclosure, Accuracy
- NewsBites: Health Plan or Else
- Revolving Door: The Times Agenda
- Networks Fail to Investigate Allegations While Dismissing Revelations
- Too Tough-On-Crime Lawman
- The Numbers Game
- So Much for the Truth Squad
- Janet Cooke Award: ABC's Tom Foreman Finds the Majority of Ad "Inaccuracy" and "Scare Tactics" on the Right
Janet Cooke Award: ABC's Tom Foreman Finds the Majority of Ad "Inaccuracy" and "Scare Tactics" on the Right
Who's "Strangling Fair Debate"?
In the 1992 campaign, the networks appointed themselves as truth squads on the candidates' advertising. But almost all the "misleading" ads came from the Republicans. With the health care debate reaching culmination, ABC identified the source of "misinformation." For attacking only conservatives without allowing them to defend themselves, ABC earned the Janet Cooke Award.
On World News Tonight July 25, ABC's Tom Foreman began: "In the battle over health care reform, the first casualty may be the truth. Special interest groups promoting a wide range of positions have committed $50 million to ad campaigns, yet many are causing more confusion than clarity."
Foreman based his entire story on a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. ABC chose the Annenberg Center's Kathleen Hall Jamieson as their referee, but never told viewers the study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, "a nonprofit group with close ties to the Clinton reform effort," as the August 1 Time described it.
While the study often supported Clinton's statistical claims for health reform, the report singled out some liberal ads and said "questionable claims are not the unique property" of either side. But Foreman mentioned seven claims, and all but one criticized the Clinton plan.
Foreman explained: "Consider this commercial by Empower America, a conservative political group. It says the Clinton reform plan will mean patients losing the right to choose their own doctor." ABC soundbited the ad: "The bureaucracy will decide when and even if you see a specialist. Under this plan, you will lose choice and control."
Foreman "corrected" it: "All the plans being considered would offer consumers a relatively wide choice of doctors within a selected coverage pool. If patients want to go outside of the pool, they can, but it will cost more." Jamieson added: "The notion that the Clinton plan will remove choice is fundamentally false."
That is not a question of fact, but a matter of prediction. The Clinton plan would move more Americans into HMOs, with their prescribed lists of doctors and reluctance to allow specialist care. In the February 7 New Republic, Manhattan Institute analyst Elizabeth McCaughey pointed out the Clinton bill "pre-empts state laws protecting patient choice" denied by HMOs. As for "going outside of the pool," she quoted Dr. John Ludden of the Harvard Community Health Plan (who ABC interviewed on Good Morning America July 19) predicting that the fee-for-service option will "vanish quickly." But Foreman didn't ask a medical expert; he asked a journalism professor.
Foreman continued: "Another myth: access to health care would be limited, rationed. An ad by the National Right to Life Committee." Foreman showed part of the ad: "I think they'll be targeting handicapped babies and older people." Jamieson weighed in: "What is false about the claim about rationing is the assumption that we don't have any now...Virtually everyone in the country who's not wealthy is facing some form of rationing."
Douglas Johnson of the NRLC told MediaWatch that rationing "is not just the inability to obtain something because it is not free and you don't have the money to pay for it. To `ration' something is to deliberately restrict or withhold it. For example, gas rationing in World War II didn't mean some people couldn't afford gas. It means that the government forbade people to purchase gas."
Foreman went on: "Another myth: reform will mean almost everyone paying more. A commercial by the insurance lobby." The ad said: "You know, 40 percent of all plans could be taxed. Congress should know that's not fair." Foreman countered: "In reality, right now the legislation is so far from its final form, no one knows what the bottom line will be, though there are few indications of widespread cost increases." Jamieson added: "Some people will pay more, but it's not going to be a great deal more. Most are going to pay the same or pay less."
But if no one knows how legislation will end up, how can these claims be judged? Notice the ad did not say "reform will mean almost everyone paying more." The ad said 40 percent of plans could be taxed, which Sen. Bill Bradley proposed in the Senate Finance Committee. As for most paying the same or less, it's not only a question of premiums, but of taxes. Republican economist Chris Frenze told MediaWatch: "Under the Clinton plan, employers could pay as much as 7.9 percent of payroll, essentially a payroll tax larger than the standard employer tax rate of Social Security."
Foreman moved on: "Some of the worst scare tactics have come from highly conservative groups through thousands of direct mail flyers aimed primarily at older people. The Heritage Foundation warns the first people to be rationed out of health care are the elderly. The Seniors Coalition says doctors will have less time to treat patients. And the American Council for Health Care Reform says the government would use health records to end privacy for all Americans and determine who shall live and who shall die. Although there is little evidence to support any of these claims, each group asks for substantial contributions to help fight for seniors' rights."
But all six groups attacked in his story to MediaWatch they were never asked for evidence. Since the elderly need health care more, restrictions would affect them more. The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) pointed out that in Britain, 80 percent of kidney dialysis centers refuse to treat patients over 65. As for privacy, McCaughey noted the Clinton plan mentions privacy, but "doctors must report their patients' personal medical information to a national data bank or risk harsh penalties."
Foreman cited one ad from the Democrats touting Hawaii as having "The highest health care coverage in the nation. Business is thriving. People are healthier." Foreman meekly noted: "Those claims may be true for Hawaii. That does not mean the Hawaiian model will work for the nation."
But in the February 22 Investor's Business Daily, reporter John Merline noted the Urban Institute put the state's percentage of uninsured at 11 percent, greater or equal to 16 other states. The NCPA found that in the decade after the start of Hawaii's plan, employment growth lagged behind the national average and the state fell from 25th to 36th in average annual employee wages.
Foreman ended: "Scare tactics and misinformation could strangle fair debate and special interest groups will effectively rob Americans of the right to choose for themselves." But he strangled fair debate by not allowing his targets self-defense. MediaWatch called Foreman to ask why he took this approach, but he didn't call back.
