MediaWatch: January 1993
Table of Contents:
- MediaWatch: January 1993
- No Liberal Labels for Redistributionists
- NewsBites: Holiday Homeless Hype
- Revolving Door: Schram's Spin
- Networks Predictably Erupt Over Iran-Contra Pardons
- 20/20 Host Slashes at GOP
- Cummins on Crime
- Not Enough Details on Iran-Contra, But "Bastards" Kept Honest on Ads
- Janet Cooke Award: Time's Lance Morrow, Margaret Carlson Promote the Clintons
No Liberal Labels for Redistributionists
Unidentified Elderly Activists
Spending on the elderly is the largest and fastest growing part of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, and the federal government's civil and military pensions account for roughly half the fiscal year 1992 budget. The powerful interest groups behind these regularly growing programs favor an ever-greater amount of government involvement.
"The Gray Panthers, National Council of Senior Citizens, AARP, and the Society to Protect [actually the National Committee to Protect] Social Security and Medicare have been actively advocating a National Health Program that would provide access to all for years," reported the Los Angeles Times. Promoting this kind of creeping socialism should earn them a liberal label. But are reporters describing them as such?
To determine the tone of reporting, MediaWatch analysts used the Nexis news data retrieval system to find every mention of six elderly-advocacy groups in 1990, 1991, and 1992 in four major newspapers (The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post). In 406 news stories, the six groups together drew four "liberal" labels (1 percent). Despite being powerful and partisan advocacy groups, reporters described them with labels like "lobbyist" or "advocate" in only 82 stories (20.1 percent).
Families United for Senior Action, or Families USA, drew all four of the "liberal" labels used by reporters in 85 stories (4.7 percent). The group also drew 41 advocacy labels, probably because of the generic name of the group. (People for the American Way, for example, also draws more labels than other liberal groups). But even these labels had a positive sound, such as "advocates for the elderly and their families" or "an advocacy group for the elderly poor."
Families USA (known before 1990 as the Villers Foundation) also makes grants to other groups, not only groups like the Gray Panthers, but far-left think tanks like the Institute for Democratic Socialism and the Institute for Policy Studies.
More than any of the other elderly advocates, Families USA drew media attention with their own studies, which were the news hook for 30 of their 84 news stories. On October 2, the newspapers reported the findings of an "independent" Families USA-organized panel that the Clinton health plan was superior to the Bush plan. Despite the group's predictable conclusion, the newspapers used no labels in the story.
The largest and most powerful group, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), appeared in 196 newspaper stories without a single ideological label. Despite being called "arguably the most convincing mega-lobby in American politics" (Los Angeles Times), "one of the nation's most powerful lobbying groups" (New York Times), and "one of the most effective lobbies in Washington" (Washington Post), reporters used advocacy labels sparingly, 25 times in 196 stories (13 percent). This may be in part because the newspapers often promoted AARP's informational brochures in news stories. But Los Angeles Times reporters also described AARP's voter education programs as "nonpartisan" and The Washington Post insisted "AARP does not take partisan political positions."
AARP may not endorse or contribute to candidates, but the September 1992 Washington Monthly used the headline: "Meet the real Democratic Party bosses: teachers' unions, government employees, and the AARP." Liberal opinion magazines are doing a better job of explaining these groups' actual role than "objective" newspapers, which present them as nonpartisan advocates for the old and poor.
Most surprisingly, the National Council of Senior Citizens (NCSC), which does endorse and contribute to candidates (almost all Democrats), was never identified as liberal in 54 news stories. Despite its partisan bent, the NCSC drew 3 advocacy labels (5.5 percent).
According to the Capital Research Center report The Age Lobby, the NCSC, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, gave $217,000 to 126 congressional candidates in 1986, and all but one (the late Silvio Conte) were Democrats. The report also revealed the group's funding sources: "Of NCSC's impressive 1989 budget of $58,800,000, an astonishing 95 percent -- $55,650,000 -- came from government contracts and grants." That's an investigative bombshell waiting to happen.
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare drew no liberal labels and only eight advocacy labels in 32 stories. Reporters used no labels, even though the Capital Research Center found "the money spent by the rest of the age lobby combined pales in comparison to this one organization." In 1986, the group's political action committee contributed $672,000 to 249 Democratic candidates and $46,000 to 26 Republicans. In addition, the PAC made "independent expenditures" of $1.9 million, $1.72 million of it on Democrats.
Two other groups also drew no liberal labels. The Older Women's League received 34 mentions (with three advocacy labels), while the Gray Panthers appeared in only five. The pattern duplicated itself in magazine coverage: a Nexis survey of 1990-92 articles in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report found 26 mentions, but no liberal labels, and only four advocacy labels. Like the newspapers, three of those four were applied to Families USA.
As entitlement spending swells, identifying these groups' ideological preference may be a good first step toward informing media consumers that the groups not only promote the enrichment of the elderly whether they're poor or not, but the aggrandizement of the federal government as well.
